The problem is not the electoral college itself.

[JayhawkSD]

It is the states electing to allocate their electoral votes on a "winner take all" basis.

I did the math, and if all states allocated their electoral votes based on the percentage of the popular vote, rounded to the nearest whole vote, the election would have turned out: Clinton 258, Trump 251, Others 29. That is in very close alignment with the overall popular vote, and shows the the electoral college is not the problem. It can work just fine.

The winner take all allocation is not mandated in the constitution, so presumably it could be changed without a constitutional amendment? Two states already do it, although even they have a "winner take all" component.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. Duck, Jayhawk

I said that back in November and, even though i made it clear i thought the EC was a ridiculous anachronism, i got creamed for "supporting" the EC.

[PJMcK]

2. Great post

That's a thoughtful idea, JayhawkSD. In fact, your point about the States' voting rules hints at something bigger.

The problems with voting in the U.S. are numerous and include gerrymandering, purging of voting rolls, denial of voting rights, arcane rules generally benefitting Republicans (who are actually a minority) and many other smaller problems.

The only way to make meaningful changes is for Democrats to gain control of state houses and governorships. Those are tough goals in our polarized (and sick) nation.

[padfun]

3. If you are going to give out percentages,

why not just go to the popular vote? it is more accurate than splitting votes.

I know you agree, I was just saying this rhetorically.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Here's Why I Think It's Salable

Assume we all agree that just jettisoning it is the best course, but also assume that it's a tough sell to most of the smaller states. (Or easy to drum up opposition.)

The sales point is that the original intent was to allow electors to contravene a popular vote when a demagogue or nutcase fools enough of the electorate that they could vote their conscience and not follow the will of the people.

Under the current system, in a large state like PA, in order to have overturned that state, over half the electors would have had to defect from the popular vote. But, in November, if the electoral votes were proportional, it would have only take one person of conscience to defect and throw the state to HRC.

The sales point is that the original intent of the approach is still being preserved to prevent the fomentation of dictatorship, or even something close, but without putting an undue burden on mass numbers of electors to have to defect, therefore coming closer to the will of the people.

Giving one person the entire electoral slate for a 0.1% slate is easier to criticize than to say that one person did what they felt best to stop something like what we have now.

And, that one elector is more likely to come forward if they know that without another 20 following their lead, they're just tilting at windmills.

[Expecting Rain]

20. Playing the Devil's Advocate for a moment

You say that under your plan in some conditions (like PA in 2016) it would only take "one person of conscience to defect and throw the state" (and conceivably an entire election) to an (otherwise losing) opponent.

But what would stop an elector in a similar position from acting in bad faith (or from a position "of conscience" that looks very different than our own) to swing an election in a direction we strongly opposed.

In this latter case might it not look like an illegitimate outcome on our end?

Just thinking this through.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. No, That's Fair

I thought of that too and its a risk.

But the bad faith of one snake ONLY matters in a near dead heat.

And, I'm not really proposing anything, just looking for something even the small staters would see as acceptable as it would take an amendment no matter what the change.

But your point is totally fair

[mvymvy]

41. NPV does Not take an Amendment & Is Supported by Small staters

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored like the big ones because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

[ProfessorGAC]

42. You Sure?

I don't see anything in your post that assures an amendment is not needed to essentially change the role of the EC
Am I missing something there?
As to your analysis of state interest, I'll reserve judgment because I don't know the methodology of the polls you cite.

[mvymvy]

44. States are enacting the bill

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

In the polls, voters were asked
"How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

[tinrobot]

33. Because it still gives small states more power.

One of the common arguments I hear it's that the EC slightly favors small states. While I don't agree with that argument, small states will probably fight a switch to popular vote. It is a political battle that will be hard to win, particularly when it involves a constitutional amendment.

This proposal sidesteps that battle, retaining the small state advantage while moving closer to a fair election. While not ideal, anything that makes elections more fair is good, in my book.

[randr]

4. The EC is no different than grading kids on a curve

[yallerdawg]

5. It's more screwed up than that.

California's 2 senators (D) represent 12.15% of US population.

Wyoming's 2 senators (R) represent .18% of US population - not 1%, but less than 1/5 of 1%!

In the Senate, California's will is negated by a handful in Wyoming. That's not democracy. That's a problem!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

[Baconator]

55. If only there was another house of congress...

... that allocated by population.

[yallerdawg]

59. The house that's gerrymandered to the point...

where the Democrats have the majority of the actual voter turnout but a minority of representatives?

All of this - ALL of this - is the vestiges of the colonial argument over "state's" rights and slavery.

There is an argument for "local" governing, but based on historically "arbitrary" boundaries and ever-changing demographics, it is very hard to continue to accept the ongoing anti-democratic reality of the US Constitution.

The house that is "allocated by population" also gets to pick the president if we don't get a majority determination of Electoral College votes.

A strong third party presidential candidate, and we could see some things we NEVER imagined!

[Baconator]

62. Then the issue is with gerrymandering...

... and it's a significant one but I think there's value in protecting small states and less densely populated areas.

The system just isn't built for a legitimate third party candidate which is a huge part of the reason that both parties have such a hard time with identity.

[brush]

6. Thanks for doing the work on the calculations, but since they line up with the popular vote...

why would we need the EC redundancy?

Just get rid of it.

It's an antiquated holdover that gave advantages to slave-holding states and now gives advantages to small, sparsely populated, repug states.

[mvymvy]

16. 3% of U.S. could stop Amendment

There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, pragmatically, the National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

[brush]

17. Thanks for that. That makes sense.

[UTUSN]

7. There is at least 1 move to modify it without the Amendment route to ditch it

I'd rather ditch it but too hard the amendment route, as the poster above said, why keep a double system instead of ditching it. In the meantime, one of these other ways is fairly close to getting by.

******QUOTE********

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of July 2017[update], it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 165 electoral votes, which is 30.7% of the total Electoral College and 61.1% of the votes needed to give the compact legal force.

Proposed in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among the participating states in the compact only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. In the next presidential election after adoption by the requisite number of states, the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to presidential electors associated with the candidate who wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, the winner of the national popular vote would always win the presidency by always securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner. ....

*******UNQUOTE****

[customerserviceguy]

9. That will work fine until

the day that Mississippi votes go to a Democratic candidate, or California's electoral votes go for a Republican. Then, you will see the affected states get out of that pact as quickly as possible.

The GOP is too smart to let this pass, that's why the only states signed up for this idea are blue ones.

[mvymvy]

12. Withdrawal is not possible until after Inauguration

The National Popular Vote bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

[customerserviceguy]

18. Perhaps so

And the new legislative sessions of the states will just be getting underway. In the states where the vote flipped from who people in that state wanted to the other side, repeal of this compact will be the first thing on the agenda.

Had it gone the other way, and Trump had won the popular vote, while Hillary won the Electoral College, and this compact kicked in, wouldn't we be storming state capitals of states that gave their electoral votes to him, even though a particular state went heavily in favor of Clinton? I can easily see GOPers doing the same thing.

[mvymvy]

15. Passed in red, blue and purple states

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

[customerserviceguy]

19. Yes, it has passed in a couple of red states in PARTS of the legislature

None of them has formally entered the compact all the way through.

Like I said, it will instantly seem like the wrong thing to do as soon as the "wrong" candidate gets a state's electoral votes. It would be far easier to get a Maine/Nebraska system in place, where EC electors are apportioned by Congressional districts, with the two extra EC votes representing the Senators going to the winner of the popular vote in a state. But if that happens, the GOP would probably run the table for the rest of American history.

[mvymvy]

23. 77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

Nebraska in 2008 was the first time any state in the past century gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state.

2016 is the first time an electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
77% of Maine voters have supported a national popular vote for President
In 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill

Republican leaders in Maine proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, would require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Then they changed their minds and wanted to pass a majority-only plan to make redistricting in their favor even easier.

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
74% of Nebraska voters have supported a national popular vote for President

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008,Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.
A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC becomes President.

[customerserviceguy]

24. Maine and Nebraska

are already exceptions to the rules. Mark my words, it will not get through more than a couple of purple states, and no red ones. It just takes too much power away from smaller states that want to hold on to it.

[mvymvy]

37. Well, if you say so . . . But

With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored like the big ones because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

[hughee99]

54. They won't just drop out, they'll sue.

The majority of the votes went to one candidate but all the EC votes from that state are going someone else because of vote totals in other states based on an agreement they didn't vote for? As in, someone else voted to give away their franchise.

[Demsrule86]

8. The other way would be by congressional district...have you heard about a little thing called

the Gerrymander...I will keep winner takes all. The GOP could lose the popular vote by millions and still win as they have done with the House since 10.

I realized that you are talking about awarding the presidency to the winner of the popular vote that would increase voting in that everyone would have a stake in the election...what are the chances this becomes law?

[customerserviceguy]

10. I don't see it happening

Yes, turnout may well increase in blue states to push the Democratic candidate to a higher popular vote total, but it will have a similar energizing effect on conservative voters who think of their vote as meaningless if they live in a red state.

We saw what happened this last time when people who normally don't bother to vote suddenly saw a champion in Trump. Of course, they were fooled, but Hillary should have beaten any GOP candidate handily. The present system has worked somewhat for over 200 years, and it's easier to figure out the "game" from past results. At least it was for the Trumpsters.

[Demsrule86]

31. It certainly could happen. In fact that would be a way for the GOP to retain power and it has been

discussed in important states. As for Trump he barely won...and I am not sure he really won in any case.

[mvymvy]

11. Congress would have decided 2016 election

In a situation in which no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, with the current system, the election of the President would be thrown into the U.S. House (with each state casting one vote) and the election of the Vice President would be thrown into the U.S. Senate. Congress would decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

[customerserviceguy]

21. Yes, Wyoming would have as much a say in who won as California

Clearly, with the Electoral College and the "thrown into the US House" parts of the Constitution, the framers were trying to entice the smaller less populous states into ratifying the Constitution. Every time a state was admitted to the US, Congress agreed to allow the new state to play by the same rules. It was important to the concept of manifest destiny.

Now, here we are today, still in the longest period in American history without the addition of a new State, and a couple of elections where the popular vote was not reflected in the Electoral College total (a somewhat more common occurrence in the early days of the US) and we find fault with something that was considered very important some two hundred years ago. But in the 20th Century, many elections produced Democratic presidents, and we saw Barack Obama get elected not once, but twice, following the ancient rules.

It's like baseball, the team with the most hits doesn't necessarily win, the team with the most runs does. You can play by the rules as they are and still win. Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign did not have what it took to beat a man who should have lost very badly.

[padfun]

25. Obama would have been elected following the new rules as well.

He won the popular vote both times.

And No, it hasn't worked well for over 200 years. In fact, it has failed in many elections. The current system is broken.

[mvymvy]

34. So so "ancient rules" & not designed by Founders

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use winner-take-all laws

[Orrex]

46. Wyoming already has more of a say per capita than California does

Based on 2016 figures:

Wyoming
Population: 585,501
Electoral votes: 3
Ratio: 1 electoral vote : 195,167 residents

California
Population: 39,250,017
Electoral votes: 55
Ratio: 1 electoral vote : 713,637 residents

In essence, when it comes to electing the president, each resident of Wyoming gets 3.5X more of a say than a resident of California.


The electoral college should be abolished.

[customerserviceguy]

48. The same can be said of Wyoming's representation in the US Senate

Care to lop one Senate seat from Wyoming and give it to California? You'd have to do the same thing, which is amend the Constitution. Good luck with that.

[mvymvy]

50. National Popular Vote bill does not change anything in Constitution

Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. This feature cannot be changed by state law or an interstate compact.

In fact, equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides:
“No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states.

In contrast, the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigns the power of selecting the manner of appointing presidential electors to the states. The enactment by a state legislature of the National Popular Vote bill is an exercise of a legislature’s existing powers under the U.S. Constitution.

In short, enactment of the National Popular Vote compact, which would not abolish the Electoral College, has no bearing on the federal constitutional provisions establishing equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate.

[customerserviceguy]

57. I was commenting on

the fact that the person I was responding to thought it was wrong for the electoral college votes of Wyoming to be worth "more" than those of California. And that's the way it is in the Senate, along with that additional protection that you have enlightened me on.

In either case, some inequality was part and parcel of the Constitution in two instances. Every state that ratified or joined since has agreed to those terms.

[Orrex]

52. No, it's not the same thing.

The STATE gets 2 Senators, not the population. Senate representation is not calculated based on population.

California is under-represented in the electoral college.
Wyoming is over-represented in the electoral college.

The electoral college should be abolished.

[customerserviceguy]

58. Whether it should or shouldn't

it won't happen. The thirteen smallest states could prevent that from happening, and that's only if you could get two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, and I don't see that happening, either. The smallest thirteen states would have 26 Senators, and all they'd need is another eight from mid-size states to go along with them, and it doesn't clear the Senate.

There have been various schemes to try to fiddle with how states allocate electors, and outside of Maine and Nebraska (who have been doing it their way for a pretty long time, with nobody joining them) none have been effectuated.

[mvymvy]

60. 3% of U.S. could stop Amendment to abolish

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, pragmatically, The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

[Orrex]

61. Yes! That's the bill I was trying to remember

I'd prefer that the electoral college be abolished entirely, but this sounds like an admirable workaround.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. The constitution does specify the states say how they choose their electors

so it still requires them to make changes voluntarily. And that runs up against any party capable of controlling their state legislature being unlikely to want to give up what they see as a potential win of all their state's votes for their party.

[mvymvy]

35. 38 states are politically irrelevant in presidential general elections

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
"The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,"
“The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

In the 2016 general election campaign

Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population).

Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

[oberliner]

43. In the 1960 election, the swing states were Illinois and Texas

At least we know that the states do change over time.

[mvymvy]

45. Many states have not been competitive for more than a half-century

From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

With that 20 year pattern, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect,
Democrats only needed a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lost Florida (29), they would have lost.

From 1992- 2016
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
16 states (with 195) voted Democratic every time

Many states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
• 38 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2016
• 29 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2016
• 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
• 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
• 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
• 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

[oberliner]

47. There are no states that have not been competitive for more than half a century

There is not a single state that has voted the same way in every election of the last fifty years.

[Expecting Rain]

22. One thing we need to be aware of folks...

the right-wing has plans to exploit dissatisfaction with the Electoral College and is going to push movements against "winner-take-all" aspect in states like CA where they can pick up votes while they keep red states "winner-take-all."

It is part of a master plan.

[padfun]

26. Yes, that is why the coalition of states.

The winner of the popular vote wins regardless.

[Expecting Rain]

27. But that won't be the only measure moving forward.

[padfun]

28. I know. Like you said,

Some conservatives are pushing for large Blue states to split their votes. California was on to that from the beginning of this proposal.

[bigbrother05]

29. That's their plan to "gerrymander" the EC

They want it to be by Congressional district so it ends up just like their loaded House

[Iggo]

30. "...if all states allocated their electoral votes based on the percentage of the popular vote..."

But, then, that's effectively getting rid of the electoral college and using the popular vote.

It's just the long way around. Right?

[mvymvy]

36. Proportional would not be the same as winning by national popular vote

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC becomes President.

[TexasBushwhacker]

32. Here's my beef with the EC

If one person shows up to vote in California, whoever they vote for gets all of CA's electoral votes. If every single person in another state votes, they still only get the EVs that are allocated to their state. Add to that the fact that EVs already skew to favor low population states. The winner take all system discourages voting for the losing in all the non-swing states. Of course, people still vote because of the down ticket races, but why should my vote for the Democrat essentially not count?

[ProudLib72]

38. Thank you!

I was wondering when someone would finally get to impact on voter turnout. To my mind, that is the single most important question when considering any election system: Does it promote high voter turnout?

[Calista241]

40. I doubt they'd proportion votes like that.

Both the main parties would object if 3rd parties started getting so many votes. It's in the interest of both the DNC and RNC to limit 3rd parties as much as possible.

[MurrayDelph]

49. I've been proposing something similar

I want to keep the Electoral College, but change it to a dual-proportional allotment.

If State X has 10% of the country's eligible voters, State X gets 10% of the country's Electoral College allotment.

If Candidate Y wins 65% of State X's votes, Candidate Y gets 65% of State X's Electoral College for a total of 6.5% of the National Electoral College total.

That way, the votes are still proportional, but stealing an election becomes harder. This way, if State Z finds itself with more Republican votes than there are voters in that state, the only state that gets screwed is their own.

[mvymvy]

51. One person, One vote

Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the 23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three.

A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, pragmatically, the National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.

[guillaumeb]

53. Recommended.

Allowing the Electoral College results to mimic the popular vote sounds like an excellent idea and more representative of the will of the people.

[shanny]

56. there has been a push to do just that.

problem is if, say, blue states do it and red states don't, guess who wins? uuuuge!

any predictions as to whether red states would pull a double-cross like that?