Cultureculture

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 01:44 PM

Warren promises to get rid of Electoral College if Elected




Never happen, you would require a Constitutional Amendment

Smell the Desperation

71 replies, 726 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 71 replies Author Time Post
Reply Warren promises to get rid of Electoral College if Elected (Original post)
Gunslinger201 Dec 2 OP
JanetS Dec 2 #1
Solesurvivor Dec 2 #2
imwithfred Dec 2 #11
Independent.mind Dec 2 #3
Charlie Mike Dec 2 #13
oldgulph Dec 2 #14
Iron Condor Dec 3 #15
oldgulph Dec 3 #17
oldgulph Dec 3 #18
oldgulph Dec 3 #19
Iron Condor Wednesday #25
oldgulph Wednesday #26
oldgulph Wednesday #27
Charlie Mike Friday #60
oldgulph Friday #65
Charlie Mike Friday #66
oldgulph Saturday #68
Charlie Mike Saturday #69
oldgulph Sunday #70
Charlie Mike Sunday #71
oldgulph Wednesday #28
Carl Wednesday #40
Iron Condor Wednesday #43
oldgulph Wednesday #44
oldgulph Wednesday #45
oldgulph Thursday #46
Carl Dec 3 #16
oldgulph Dec 3 #20
Carl Dec 3 #21
oldgulph Wednesday #34
Carl Wednesday #38
DP46 Wednesday #23
oldgulph Wednesday #30
oldgulph Wednesday #31
DP46 Wednesday #35
oldgulph Wednesday #32
oldgulph Wednesday #33
DP46 Wednesday #36
Crazy D Wednesday #37
Carl Wednesday #39
Crazy D Wednesday #41
Carl Wednesday #42
oldgulph Thursday #47
Carl Thursday #50
_eek Wednesday #24
oldgulph Wednesday #29
Zappa Dappa Doo Thursday #58
_eek Friday #61
WhiskeyMakesMeHappy Dec 2 #4
Bob the Bilderberger Dec 2 #5
Steelydamned Dec 2 #6
FreeWheelBurning Dec 2 #7
Solesurvivor Dec 2 #8
Magyar Heidinn Dec 2 #9
Da Mannn Dec 2 #10
oldenuff35 Dec 2 #12
Duke Lacrosse Dec 3 #22
Zappa Dappa Doo Thursday #48
Currentsitguy Thursday #49
oldgulph Thursday #51
oldgulph Thursday #52
Currentsitguy Thursday #53
oldgulph Thursday #54
oldgulph Thursday #55
oldgulph Thursday #56
oldenuff35 Thursday #57
DP46 Thursday #59
oldgulph Friday #62
oldgulph Friday #63
oldgulph Friday #64
DP46 Friday #67

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 01:47 PM

1. Lefty sure does hate the Constitution, not even subtle about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 01:50 PM

2. She does know the President doesnt change that or cant change it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 03:47 PM

11. She does, but she's counting on Democrats and primitives not to know about it.

Pandering to the ignorant and the stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 01:56 PM

3. The electoral college isn't going anywhere

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 04:38 PM

13. Not without constitutional amendment, which is why this stunt proves

Warren is pandering to idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:59 PM

14. Every vote in every state can matter and count equally

The National Popular Vote bill is 73% 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.

It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 3, 2019, 12:22 AM

15. Horse crap

"It REQUIRES enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes...... All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where the live."

LOL,, that is absolute horse crap. Making any state change its votes because enough others voted differently in other states is complete disenfranchisement of that state's sovereignty.

The electoral college is absolutely the most fair system in a Republic of sovereign states. It both preserves individual state sovereignty, and, preserves everyone's vote equally counts nation wide. Everyone gets one vote and whoever wins the popular vote in that state gets the electoral votes of that state, and, if there are more people in that state that state gets more electoral votes. Everything is addressed here. What you are proposing would have people from other states effectively deciding the voting outcome of states they don't belong to...... Horse crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 3, 2019, 06:48 PM

17. States have constitutional power to choose


States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38 states and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution—

"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."

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 3, 2019, 06:49 PM

18. of COURSE not

If everyone's vote equally counts nation wide, how can a candidate with fewer votes win?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 3, 2019, 06:50 PM

19. One person, One vote, as in virtually every other US election

In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, 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 has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: "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?"

Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 04:51 AM

25. At the end of the day

You are talking about a state who's citizens voted for candidate (A), but, because people from other states voted more for candidate (B) but not enough to get the required 270 electoral votes. The state that voted for candidate (A) just gets it vote usurped.

What you are talking about is eliminating the sovereignty of a state. There is no way around that point. There is no way around the fact that what you are suggesting has a state's vote decided by people voting from a different state. In so doing that totally disenfranchises that state's sovereignty regarding its vote in a constitutional republic consisting of a union of individual sovereign states.

The concern you are trying to address is already addressed in both our electoral system, and, how our House of Representatives is populated. The candidate with the popular vote among the people in a state wins that state. States that have larger populations get more electoral votes respectively, and, get more House Representatives respectively.

Remember our country is a union of individual sovereign states. What you are suggesting ignores that fact and is counter to the basic concept of how our country is designed. You are talking about usurping a state in their choice of governance.

Like I said.....That's horse crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:01 AM

26. Every vote in every state will matter and count equally

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. 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).

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The National Popular Vote states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
- Vikram David Amar - professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:02 AM

27. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased

The National Popular Vote bill retains the Electoral College and state control of elections. It again changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally 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 among 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 and the majority of Electoral College votes.

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38 states and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution—

"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."

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 6, 2019, 02:49 AM

60. If nothing will change then there's no point in changing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 6, 2019, 01:03 PM

65. The candidate with the most national popular votes will win

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.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

The candidate with the most national popular votes will win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #65)

Fri Dec 6, 2019, 02:13 PM

66. Let's go with...

Fuck California and New York.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 7, 2019, 06:48 PM

68. together CA and NY Dems cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote

5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.
1,366,760 New Yorkers live in rural areas.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.

California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million).

In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.

The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

In 2004, 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.

New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

Under a popular-vote system CA and NY would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #68)

Sat Dec 7, 2019, 06:50 PM

69. Without CA, Trump won by 3 million votes.

Fuck 'em and their feces covered sanctuary cities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #69)

Sun Dec 8, 2019, 12:13 PM

70. One cannot just pretend any voters in any state didn't vote in a US presidential election.

5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.

There are 5 million Republicans in California. That is a larger number of Republicans than 47 other states.

Trump got more votes in California than he got in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia combined.
None of the votes in California for Trump, helped Trump.

California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.

The vote difference in California wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.

California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton

61% of an equally populous Republican base area of states running from West Virginia to Wyoming (termed “Appalachafornia”) votes were for Trump. He got 4,475,297 more votes than Clinton.
With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all votes for all candidates in California and Appalachafornia will matter equally.

In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
About 62% Democratic

California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.

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).

With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all Republican votes in California and every other state will matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #70)

Sun Dec 8, 2019, 12:30 PM

71. One cannot just pretend federal immigration law doesn't exist.

I really don't give enough of a fuck to read the rest of your pointlessly long winded post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:05 AM

28. The bill addresses MANY issues

It guarantees 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.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 12:36 PM

40. To do your last sentence you are determined to increase beyond check the power and influence of just

2 states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 02:01 PM

43. That's precisely what they want

They want just a couple of heavily populated states to decide the outcome of elections. They know it and are trying to pretend like that is best for everyone. Of course its horse crap because it goes against the very structure behind what our country is - a union of individual sovereign states.

These people don't care about the United States. They say they do. They might even think they do. But they don't. All they care about is power and only them having it. They are also they only ones I see burning and defecating on our flag. They are the only ones I hear denigrating our country and proclaiming it was never great.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:59 PM

44. NY state, IL, and CA Dems 12% of national popular vote

With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 smaller states.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 11 largest states: 7 voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). 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.

With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter. Under a national popular vote, the margin of your loss within a state matters as much as the size of your win.

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% R), 1,691,267
* New York (59% D), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% R), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% R), 426,778
* California (55% D), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% D), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% D), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) 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) 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).



In 2016, New York state, Illinois, and California Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state, Illinois, and California cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:59 PM

45. Individual sovereign states are using their Constitutional power to enact

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 12:02 AM

46. You live in an alternate reality

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

When asked the simple question “Do you think the person who wins the most votes nationwide should become the president?” 74% of all Americans surveyed say yes.

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

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 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 271 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 3, 2019, 05:19 AM

16. No matter how many times you go on about this it is never happening and no all voters

would not be valued equally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 3, 2019, 06:52 PM

20. One person, One vote 11

As in virtually every other election in the U.S.

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 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 271 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 3, 2019, 07:23 PM

21. We have been over this and over this,despite the almost religious belief posted the exact

opposite would be the reality.

Any state ever won by the popular vote of that state which then sent its EC delegates to vote for a different candidate instantly nullifies the majority vote of that state.

Their vote now means nothing,they might as well not bother since NYC and LA are picking the President.

It is never going to happen,it is unconstitutional on its face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:14 AM

34. Every vote in every state will matter and count equally

The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

59,849,899 people live in the 100 biggest cities.

59,492,267 people live in rural America.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.
1,366,760 New Yorkers live in rural areas.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.

California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million).

In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.

The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

In 2004, 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.

New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

Under a popular-vote system CA and NY would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 12:31 PM

38. That copy/paste tripe is meaningless,you can't get by the fact that you want the residents

of one state that speak via a popular vote of that state to have the meaning of their votes possibly stripped away.

No amount of blather is going to change that raw fact of what the act proposes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 12:42 AM

23. Can't wait to see which 37 states you're going to get to ratify the Constitutional amendment

It will take an amendment to the Constitution to change the electoral college. All you need is 2/3 of both the House and Senate, then 37 states to ratify the amendment in a given time frame. It's 7th grade Civics. Better get busy because it's not something any President can do or any court can change.

(Pssst, Courts have already ruled that a state may not change the way electoral votes are allotted and disenfranchise their own voters.)

I'm sure the 5 SCOTUS justices that lean Conservative will be happy to disenfranchise most of middle America, so the Democrats can win an election.

States like Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, the Dakotas, Idaho, et. al. are eager to forfeit their franchise so you can feel better.

Funny, how Lefty suddenly is a big state's rights fan. They haven't been that way since we took their slaves away from them and told them they can't segregate anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:08 AM

30. Changing State laws, NOT the Constitution

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

The U.S. Constitution says "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 normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by state legislatures with governors making changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the 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.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution and amend it.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

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

The National Popular Vote bill is 73% 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.

It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

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 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 271 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:10 AM

31. Courts have NOT ruled that a state may not change the way electoral votes are allotted

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:15 AM

35. Umm, yeah they have, try again

Denver —

A U.S. appeals court in Denver said electoral college members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states.

The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the U.S. Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote because the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-21/electoral-college-members-not-bound-by-popular-vote-court-rules

Now one more time, which 37 states are you going to get to eliminate the Electoral College and what are the odds that SCOTUS will let you get away with it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:11 AM

32. Every vote in every state will matter and count equally

With National Popular Vote, every voter, in every state, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
All votes would count equally towards the national vote

The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as New Hampshire or Florida. The National Popular Vote bill would give voice to every voter in the country, as opposed to treating voters for candidates who did not win a plurality in the state as if they did not exist.

The National Popular Vote bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to presidential candidates.
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
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).
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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:12 AM

33. Every vote in every state will matter and count equally

With the National Popular Vote bill, 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 Pennsylvania 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.

We would not be doing away with the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.

The 8 smallest states (i.e., those with three electoral votes) together received only one of the nation’s 952 general-election campaign events in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections.

Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored, like medium and big states where the statewide winner is predictable, 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 5 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:23 AM

36. You really sound frantic and desperate with multiple posts to one comment

Plus, I'm getting spittle on the inside of my computer screen.

Calm down. It just means you'll have to actually win an election the way they have for over 240 years.

If you can't win fair and square by the rules that have been in place since 17881, tough shit for you side.

You don't get to change the rules when it suits you and if you do want them changed there are things you must do, no short cuts or scams at the state level.

BTW, "States Rights" if just another dog whistle for slavery and segregation, and it's what got the Democrat Party ancestors into the Civil War and trying to stop the Civil Rights legislation (Passed by the Republicans in the 1960's).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 12:18 PM

37. I want to see what happens if Trump wins the popular vote next year

Do all these "Compact Disciples' then abide by their own laws and say it's ok for those same blue state electoral votes be switched to Trump or do they admit the laws are unconstitutional and claim the votes should stay with the winner of the state.

Watch, if Trumps does win the PV there will be more twists and gymnastics on the Democrats side than the next Summer Olympics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 12:34 PM

39. California and NY would bail in a milisecond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 12:43 PM

41. No doubt

I really think Trump will win the popular vote in 2020. People forget alot of Republican voters stay home in blue states because they think it's a waste of time voting since it "won't count in the long run"

With the antics of the left the past few years I think enough disgusted people will come out and vote. Trump wins the PV by 1/2 million votes (not a landslide like some people here like to claim, by a narrow margin though) and then we see back-flips galore from the democrats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 12:44 PM

42. Or as in 1876 they will send duel slates of Electors on the hopes it throws the matter to the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 12:03 AM

47. Impairments Clause

The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "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

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:

“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”

An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 12:31 PM

50. Which is utter rubbish as there is no timeframe close to adequate for judicial review short of

SCOTUS action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 02:48 AM

24. Sounds like you want a democracy.

Well, there are a myriad of choices for anyone so silly as to think its a great idea to move to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 11:07 AM

29. Would remain a Republic

difference between a democracy and a republic the delegation of the government, the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest."
In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents."- Madison

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. It is not rule by referendum.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.


We would not be doing away with the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes

The National Popular Vote bill is 73% 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 09:42 PM

58. We have a democracy now,

and would remain so even if we switched to a popular vote for the presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zappa Dappa Doo (Reply #58)

Fri Dec 6, 2019, 07:07 AM

61. I have to disagree.

We have a FORM of Democracy, and an odd penchant for claiming to be one.

But we have now and continue to need a cushion from the caprices of the mob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 02:05 PM

4. The Bill of Rights was penned to protect citizens from people like her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 02:10 PM

5. Democrats love tyranny of the majority

Mob rule is how they roll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 03:14 PM

6. Once again....

...if Hillary had won the Presidency with the Electoral College win - you know, the way the system was designed - this issue would not even be in the public eye right now.

But, because she didn't....."our system is broken" and needs "fixing."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 03:21 PM

7. How ignorant is she?

How have we as a nation come to a point where a presidential candidate does not know that an amendment would be required in order to abolish the Electoral College?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 03:26 PM

8. Its pretty embarrassing how much these scumbags a pandering by giving free

stuff and doing other things to get elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 03:41 PM

9. Get rid of the electoral college and usher is a one party communist system.

The democrats wet dream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 03:47 PM

10. If the rats get power, there will NEVER be a free election ever again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 03:58 PM

12. The faux squaw is as stupid as she is ugly. The president does not have the ability to change the EC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2019, 11:36 PM

22. She's delusional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 12:38 AM

48. I can't stand her, wouldn't vote for her, but this is WAY overdue.

One person, one vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zappa Dappa Doo (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 10:56 AM

49. The proposal is quite literally a recipe to dissolve the Union

What possible reason would there be for the middle of the country, the majority of States, to remain if they are effectively permanently disenfranchised? It's effectively rule by a few huge cities.

It's a very bad idea to marginalize the parts of the country that feed you.

If you're actually looking for real Civil War I can't think of a better way to bring it about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 05:08 PM

51. Your assumptions are not based on facts.

A presidential candidate who won only in America’s cities and urban centers would lose — there just aren’t enough votes.

The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

59,849,899 people live in the 100 biggest cities.

59,492,267 people live in rural America.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. 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. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
Under a national popular vote, rural voters throughout the country would have their votes matter, rather than being ignored because of state boundaries.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws, in some states, big city Democratic votes can outnumber all other people not voting Democratic in the state. All of a state’s votes may go to Democrats.

Without state winner-take-all laws, every conservative in a state that now predictably votes Democratic would count. Right now they count for 0

The current system completely ignores conservative presidential voters in states that vote predictably Democratic.

With National Popular Vote, every voter, in every state, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
All votes would count equally towards the national vote

The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as New Hampshire or Florida. The National Popular Vote bill would give voice to every voter in the country, as opposed to treating voters for candidates who did not win a plurality in the state as if they did not exist.

The National Popular Vote bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to presidential candidates.
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
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).
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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 05:09 PM

52. Most Americans think the winner should have the most national popular votes

“ Let’s quit pretending there is some great benefit to the national good that allows the person with votes to win the White House. Republicans have long said that they believe in competition. Let both parties compete for votes across the nation and stop disenfranchising voters by geography. The winner should win.” – Stuart Stevens (Republican)

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

When asked the simple question “Do you think the person who wins the most votes nationwide should become the president?” 74% of all Americans surveyed say yes.

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

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 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 271 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 05:39 PM

53. Most Americans are therefore wrong. I blame it on a lack of Civics education

Democracy in that form is the WORST form of government imaginable. It's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

The interests of, say Wyoming, are very different than New York. By eliminating the voices of people in less populous areas you are completely ignoring their voice. That is why States, and not individuals, chose the President.

I, for example, live in a semi-rural part of Pennsylvania. I daresay my needs and concerns are probably very different than someone in Brooklyn, or someone in Otumwa, Iowa for that matter.

I'd refer you to Federalist 68.

"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 06:55 PM

54. Would Remain a Republic

difference between a democracy and a republic the delegation of the government, the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest."
In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents."- Madison

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. It is not rule by referendum.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.


We would not be doing away with the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes

The National Popular Vote bill is 73% 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.

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. It ensures that every voter is 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.

Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 06:56 PM

55. No voices would be eliminated

With National Popular Vote, every voter, in every state, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
All votes would count equally towards the national vote

The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as New Hampshire or Florida. The National Popular Vote bill would give voice to every voter in the country, as opposed to treating voters for candidates who did not win a plurality in the state as if they did not exist.

The National Popular Vote bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to presidential candidates.
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
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).
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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 06:59 PM

56. Electors have "officially become voluntary party lackeys and intellectual nonentities"

Instead of being a deliberative body, the Electoral College, in practice, is composed of presidential electors who voted in lockstep to rubberstamp the choices that had been previously made by extra-constitutional bodies (namely, the nominating caucuses of the political parties).

Starting in 1796, political parties began nominating presidential and vice-presidential candidates on a centralized basis and began actively campaigning for their nominees throughout the country. As a result, presidential electors necessarily became rubberstamps for the choices made by the parties. “hether chosen by the legislatures or by popular suffrage on general ticket or in districts, were so chosen simply to register the will of the appointing power.”
McPherson v. Blacker. 146 U.S. 1 at 36. 1892.

Presidential electors have been expected to vote for the candidates nominated by their party—that is, “to act, not to think.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson summarized the history of presidential electors as follows in the 1952 case of Ray v. Blair:

“No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices.…

“This arrangement miscarried. Electors, although often personally eminent, independent, and respectable, officially become voluntary party lackeys and intellectual nonentities"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 07:47 PM

57. Hey Faux Squaw it ain't going to happen so stuff that where it will never get sunburned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2019, 11:51 PM

59. So many, many stupid posts, so little action. Lazy Lefty at it again.

If you really want to get rid of the Electoral College Lefty, stop looking for lazy, cheap ass short cuts.

RBG and her crew of crooks can't help you on this, the way they did on abortion and gay marriage. Even if you hold the House and Senate and White House you still can't do it.

Civics 101, learn it , love it.

To get the Constitution amended, do it the legal way the founders designed for us (all those old, dead, white slave owners, that you look up to this week for impeachment guidance). They made it very clear how to amend the Constitution.

Approved by 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and ratified by 3/4 (38 out of 50) of the states by a set date.

Here, I'll even make it easy for you to get off the basement couch and get your petitions started. You'll need a lot of volunteers a lot of time and money too. Ask some of your Billionaire candidates for a loan.

Hell, you can even repeal the 2nd amendment while you're at it too, to make Bloomberg and your gun grabbers happy and excited.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Otherwise stop the freakin' whining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 6, 2019, 12:58 PM

62. The Electoral College would continue to elect the President

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 6, 2019, 01:00 PM

63. Nonpartisan support

Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview
“I would rather have a popular vote. “

Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969),

Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill



In 2017, Saul Anuzis and Michael Steele, the former chairmen of the Michigan and national Republican parties, wrote that the National Popular Vote bill was “an idea whose time has come”.

On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote

In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

The 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.

In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill

On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

In 2006, Colorado's Senate was the first state legislative house in the nation to pass National Popular Vote's legislation for nationwide election of the President (SB 06-223). Among the Senators voting for the bill on its third reading on April 17, 2006, were Senators John Evans (R), and Lew Entz (R).



In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

When asked the simple question “Do you think the person who wins the most votes nationwide should become the president?” 74% of all Americans surveyed say yes.

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

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 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 271 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Nevada (6).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 6, 2019, 01:01 PM

64. States have constitutional power

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

The U.S. Constitution says "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 normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by state legislatures with governors making changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the 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.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution and amend it.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

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

The National Popular Vote bill is 73% 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.

It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldgulph (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 6, 2019, 02:25 PM

67. Wow! This has to be the reincarnation of G4A ... or his challenged cousin from the Bosphorus

Nobody else has that level of inability to develop an incoherent response and just throws words into the salad bowl.

3 responses in 4 minutes, none of which make any sense and don't address my post in the least.

Next time, take your time, think about it, outline your response in simple form and then write a response that is somehow, at least vaguely related, to the post you're trying to respond to

But you have a swell day and be sure to take your meds when the orderly tells you to.

Welcome back!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Cultureculture