Florida
Related: About this forum
Bill would split up Florida's electoral votes
The split would mean that all 29 votes would no longer go to the candidate who won the most votes statewide; they'd be awarded by congressional district.
Democratic Strategist Gary Yordon calls the bill an act of desperation.
“The Republicans are seeing what was once a purple state turning more and more blue,” said Yordon. “Independents registering in record numbers, I mean, really, it's slipping way.”
Florida’s not the only state looking at changing the rules.
Republican legislatures across the country are debating whether to split up their electors.
The bill could put potentially put the Republican Party in a prime position to re-capture the White House.
If Florida and five other swing states were to begin awarding their electoral votes based on which presidential candidate won each congressional district, that could be enough to hand the GOP an overwhelming advantage.
The bill's backers argue it's only fair and that Florida’s big Democratic-leaning cities have been drowning out the votes of people who live in the many more small towns that lean Republican.
Critics say that's the point, and dividing the state up would be a bad move.
Whatever comes to pass, it's enough to keep Florida squarely in the national spotlight as the race for the white house in 2016 begins.
Statehouse Republicans in Michigan and Pennsylvania are also unveiling bills to award electoral votes by congressional district.
So far, the only two states that actually do that are Maine and Nebraska.
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2013/10/20/bill_would_split_up_.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...so it would be possible to take 70% of the districts with only 45% of the popular vote.
The only silver lining would be that with Fl's votes so badly needed, the DNC may step in and take over for the highly dysfunctional State Party.
BTW, although GOP holds a super majority in the FL legislature (despite a million more registered Dems) I think that change would require a State Constitution Amendment, which would require a 2/3 votes to pass in a state referendum. I doubt it can get that...I'd be surprised if it even got 50%. And such a referendum would have a turnout the likes have never seen. If held during a GE, GOP might lose a lot of seats.
lark
(26,081 posts)FL's districts are HIGHLY gerrymandered in favor of the Teahadist, not even just regular Repugs. Only way this passes is if Scott finds some illegal way to make it happen. Since he cares nothing about the rule of law, or facing any consequences when 's he's found to have violated them, if it's humanly possible to buy this law into being, Scott's the man who'll do it. He's not called Voldemort here because of his good looks, but rather because of his actions. That he's as creepy looking as Lord Voldemort is just circumstantial. lol.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Allocation of Presidential and Vice Presidential electoral votes is by State Statute, not by State Constitution. So the Legislature can change it with a simple majority vote, don't need a public vote or super-majority. They would unlease a shitstorm if they do, but that doesn't mean they won't try.
gopiscrap
(24,734 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)But it might be harder than they think, and could very well blow up in their face.
gopiscrap
(24,734 posts)I was being sarcastic.
gopiscrap
(24,734 posts)and also why could it blow up in their face?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 20, 2013, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)
...then it would require a public refendum to change, which requires 2/3 votes to pass. Very unlikely they can get that, even under normal circumstances. And that specific instance would get a huge turnout of Dems...if its a GE then that turnout would cause a lot of GOP legislators to lose their seats. Plus, there would be several lawsuits filed.
I almost wish they'd try this...it would be a vast over-reach. Could backfire pretty badly.
Update:
The allocation of Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors is not written in the Florida Constitution, but is written in Florida Statutes 103.011. This means it can be changed by a simple majority in the Legislature. Not good, repukes have more than enough votes to do so.
Still, it will raise a shitstorm that could blow up in
their faces.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0103/0103.html
gopiscrap
(24,734 posts)lark
(26,081 posts)1 - Least likely - General populace could be indignant and take it out on them, but doubt
that would happen since gerrymandering protects them to such a large degree.
2 - Most likely - Jeb or Rubio runs and has to split votes with Hillary - that would be
hysterical!!! Jeb is still very popular in this redneck state, Rubio not quite as much.
Cosmocat
(15,424 posts)they have floated this and were close to moving on it until they got cold feet and backed down.
I swear to Christ, this shit should piss people off to no end.
PURE politics and you would think people would see it and punish them for it, but this country just has a complete enabling relationship with the republican party .
Turbineguy
(40,077 posts)They can't win it, they have to steal it.
pansypoo53219
(23,034 posts)so don't tell them to change.
mvymvy
(309 posts)Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district winner method.
Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.
A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***
A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
NationalPopularVote
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)No presidential candidate would bother to show up in Maine or Nebraske, if the popular vote determined the winner. They would spend all their campaign in large urban areas, where the voters are and where logistics are easier. Costs a lot of money to make a campaign stop at Joe's Diner in Podunk, IA.
mvymvy
(309 posts)The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.
With National Popular Vote, when every vote counts 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.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns.
In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.
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.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. 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.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since 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. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
mvymvy
(309 posts)With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)A popular vote would focus on two areas. The upper east coast and the lower west coast. Something ridiculous like 25% of the population lives roughly between DC and Boston plus between San Diego and San Fransico. Something like 70% live within 70 miles of the coasts. Campaigns wouldn't get anywere near the Mississippi river. Texas might not see much at all in the general election. Even Florida would probably see campaigns focused mostly on the Tampa to Orlando region, each side presuming the other would win either Miami, or the rest of the state. Atlanta is probably skipped entirely.
Now mind you, the campaigns would be tough in those larger metropolitan areas. There are conservative and liberal pockets throughout. So neither side could avoid campaigning alot in those urban areas. But Iowa would never see a candidate again.
mvymvy
(309 posts)Again, The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.
Even in the recent handful of states where a presidential vote matters to the candidates, the value of a vote is different.
Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 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.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election. None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual. About 80% of the country was ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. It was more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Again, When and where every vote is equal, like in statewide elections and under national popular vote, a campaign must be run everywhere.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes everywhere -- where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming or New York or Texas, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont or New York or Texas.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)It is true that the "battle ground" states shrank sharply as of late. It isn't clear that trend will be sustained. However, going to a purely popular vote will predominately just generate a "different 10".
New York
Massechusettes
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
California
Viginia
Delaware
Maryland
Really beyond that it will depend a bit on whether certain population centers need campaigning, or are considered "solidly" in some camp or another. Miami, Chicago, Atlanta,....
Especially when one considers that ads run in some of the New England and East Coast states can cover multiple markets, going to a popular vote system will probably make the race MORE local, not less. There will be exceptions, and especially as Texas and Florida become more "blue" you may see their inclusion in races. New Orleans is another market that could see some activity in certain races. But many of the smaller markets/regions are likely to be treated like Alaska.
mvymvy
(309 posts)I have no idea how you arrived at your "different 10."
With the current winner-take-all system, a non-battleground state receives no attention from either political party because neither party has anything to gain or lose in the state.
When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
Candidates for governor or U.S. Senate do not ignore any voters in their states.
With National Popular Vote there will be no battleground states.
Candidates for president would not ignore any voters in the country.
Political parties would want and need to keep and gain voters in every state.
EVERY VOTER, EVERYWHERE WOULD MATTER.
Every vote everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
Every vote would matter.
Elections wouldn't be about winning states.
Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.
States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.
The Republicans would have a huge incentive to get out the vote in rural areas of now reliably winner-take-all Democratic states. Now rural, suburban, and exurban areas of the safe states are completely ignored by both parties. The Republicans would also have a huge incentive to get out the vote across the rural South and rural, suburban, and exurban mid-West, where all voters are ignored now.
With national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.
In the 2012 campaign, “Much of the heaviest spending has not been in big cities with large and expensive media markets, but in small and medium-size metropolitan areas in states with little individual weight in the Electoral College: Cedar Rapids and Des Moines in Iowa (6 votes); Colorado Springs and Grand Junction in Colorado (9 votes); Norfolk and Richmond in Virginia (13 votes). Since the beginning of April, four-fifths of the ads that favored or opposed a presidential candidate have been in television markets of modest size.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/politics/9-swing-states-are-main-focus-of-ad-blitz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
mvymvy
(309 posts)A survey of Florida voters showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 88% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among others.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 88% among women and 69% among men.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 79% among 18-29 year olds, 78% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
NationalPopularVote
mvymvy
(309 posts)The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but since enacted by states).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.
When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have been by state legislative action.
The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
bluesbassman
(20,384 posts)We don't care if it's the first act of "Henry V," we're leaving!
AllyCat
(18,846 posts)are taking it another step to stop the majority of the people from electing a Democrat (and especially a black one) from ever being elected again by starting these kind of laws. It's been muttered about in our state too.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...so they are attempting to set up a system of minority-rule.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Are even Florida Republicans this crazy?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)If they decide to do it, theres nothing Democrats can do to stop it, outside of lawsuits.
Public outrage will blow up in their faces, however....and governors race will likely be close.
Orlandodem
(1,115 posts)seats since Rick Scott was elected.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)to disenfranchise non gop voters by putting control in the hands of the county governments, which are very often nothing more than trained lapdogs for the rich and Christian.
and I love this quote:
The bill's backers argue it's only fair and that Florida’s big Democratic-leaning cities have been drowning out the votes of people who live in the many more small towns that lean Republican.
Well maybe "y'all" in the rural areas have simply driven more of us to vote by trying to slit our throats every fucking chance you get! Can it be that you have riled up the hornet's nest, and are scared to think that this state will not longer be run from churches and secret dinners?
tanyev
(49,297 posts)Funny how the Thugs never bring that idea up in states that always go red.
jmowreader
(53,194 posts)The population of the state of Florida is 19.32 million.
The population of the metropolitan areas holding Florida's 10 largest cities is 14.41 million, or 75 percent of the total population of the state.
Are we supposed to accept the fleas wagging the dog?
mvymvy
(309 posts)Voters want to know that their vote actually directly and equally counts and matters to their candidate.
Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
With National Popular Vote very vote will be equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Aviation Pro
(15,580 posts)...over representation of the minority.
Fuck Floriduh politics.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)What would be BETTER would be to abolish the anachronistic Electoral College!
It was put in place by the revered Founders because they did not trust "the rabble" to elect the President. That's why our "betters" (electors) do it...but they are not REQUIRED to vote according to the popular vote in their state ("faithless electors"
.
No other country, to my knowledge, has this bizarre system.
mvymvy
(309 posts)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, by state laws, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls.
The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)Because it's working so well for them now with their bloody gerrymandering.
The Electoral College IS in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1).
As it stands now candidates concentrate on a few "swing states" and the hell with everyone else.
mvymvy
(309 posts)The National Popular Vote bill would change current 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 since enacted by 48 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 preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.
When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states.
