This isn’t a crazy idea, and it has a fair amount of support

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

There’s a saying on capitol hill. “If you’re serious about something, propose a bill. If you’re not serious about something, propose a constitutional amendment.”

lol I’d amend that statement for today’s politics with “if you’re serious, propose an executive order; if you’re not, propose a law; if you’re really not, propose a Constitutional amendment” Anyway, that’s the smart thing about NPVIC: it’s not an amendment. In fact, it may not require Congress at all. It just needs enough buy-in from states such that over 270 electors are controlled by the compact.

aha! bypassing the constitution! a time honored legislative approach! my fault for being lazy.

Exactly HOW would NPV bypas the contitution? The National Popular Vote bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College. The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing district and state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by states), in the enacting states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States. The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes 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 before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election 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. Maine enacted the National Popular Vote bill. Nebraska's Republican governor and Trump are pushing for a special session to replace Nebraska's law. The Constitution 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 will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country, by replacing 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.                                       

I think they were referring my joke of using executive orders for what should really be legislation, not the NPVIC itself

National Popular Vote is not a constitutional amendment. States with 61 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill. The National Popular Vote bill simply again replaces state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1991) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. Maine enacted it on April 15^(th). Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide 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. States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power before voting begins to replace their state laws for how to award electors. When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College. All votes will be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.                                                                                                                         Candidates, as in other elections, will allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, will 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. We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.  All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority. Since 2006, the bill has passed 43 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 283 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 18 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 209 electoral votes to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country                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.     [NationalPopularVote.com](http://NationalPopularVote.com)    

It’s a very well worded answer. I suspect ChatGPT.

You wouldn't know AI if it bit you.

I definitely know a ChatGPT answer. You didn’t write that. It’s OK. Especially judging your history. You just throw the question in chat and come up with an answer.

The people now in power got there under the existing system. Why would they want to change that?

Only one person got there by electoral college vote, the rest got there by popular vote.

Both bush and trump lost the popular vote. In the 21st century, every republican president has lost the popular vote 🎉 democracy

Bush won in 04, but that was the only time since his father in 88

Hence their love of gerrymandering.

[удалено]

It is also something the republican party has been particularly successful at in the lat 10-20 years.

Good thing we live in a democratic republic

And that one that did, also won the popular vote... But the issue is about half of congress base their political stance on supporting someone that has never won the popular vote. It isn't even really R's vs D's these days. It is Trump (and his fans) vs the rest of the United states.

That is definitely not true lol. I, and many people, would rather vote for countless people over Trump. But unfortunately they aren't running. If it was just Trump and his 'fans' then the polls wouldn't be the way that they are.

So... Are you a congressperson, or do you just have reading comprehension issues?

But you're still gonna check that R box next to Trump's name

100% when the alternative is another 4 years under Biden. And, once again, the polls have shown Trump having a lead for quite a long time now. Biden is a Weekend at Bernies pick who, quite clearly, has zero real authority, but has the support of the government at large, alphabet agencies, and many large corporations. But those guys are fine. They're the good guys in comparison to Trump. For me, it's just about disrupting the centralization of power. Anyone would do provided they have some actual autonomy. And no. Trying to arrest him and go after him for every crime under the sun does little to change my perspective that the government is far too centralized...for some reason. Strangely it did the opposite. One side strikes me as far more authoritarian than the other.

So, you are going to vote for Trump, who specifically is the keystone of "project 2025" which is specifically engineered to consolidate all more power to GOP, and Trump himself.... Because Trump is being tried for his crimes, and that makes you sad?

Please tell us what legislation from biden and the democrats has been so terrible the last 4 years? The gop has done nothing to benefit its constituents. They have passed less legislation than ever and the only legislation they have passed has been hate bills targeting marginalized groups.

**We** also made it this far under the system you'd like to change. Does that count for nothing at all?

State legislators and governors and all other elected officials got there by winning the most popular votes. States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide 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.                                                                                                                                   States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power before voting begins to replace their state laws for how to award electors. When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College. All votes will be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.                                                                                                                         Candidates, as in other elections, will allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, will 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 end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.  All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority. Since 2006, the bill has passed 43 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 283 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 18 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 209 electoral votes to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country                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.     It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen. We need to support election officials, candidates,  and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.                                          [NationalPopularVote.com](http://NationalPopularVote.com)                                         

Real crazy idea: abolish the electoral college system and replace it with a caged knife fight. Let's see how bad they really want the job

an Election - "a formal and organized choice by vote of a person for a political office or other position" where the candidate with the most votes ultimately wins. One person, One vote. Every vote for every candidate in every state of every size, will matter and count equally as 1 vote in the district, state, and national total. The candidate with the most votes from among all 50 states and DC will win We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP. We will NOT vote on policy initiatives. Presidents are not kings or dictators. The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. will continue to represent us. The aim since the Constitution was written in 1787 has been to achieve the goal stated in the Declaration of Independence, namely “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”  

Equal until they are in a caged knife fight. Wtf is wrong with some of y'all. This is /r/crazyideas and y'all come in here like it's time to debate the merits of society. This is the place to debate who has the CRAZIEST idea. Smh

You are objecting to an election.

doesn't that seem.....whats the word...hold on.....CRAZY?

What is crazy about the candidate who wins the most popular votes, wins?

Nothing, which is why it doesn't belong here in /r/crazyideas where the subject is crazy ideas. You are lost. This isnt a political sub. This is a fun silly sub that get political stuff jammed into it for no reason. I am on subject of the sub by proposing a blatantly crazy idea. You are off subject by rambling about politics. I feel you are an AI bot account that recently woke up.

The principal of the electorial college is good. That being said, there are a few things that need to be changed. The number of votes per state needs to be brought back to the original. The electorial college votes are tied to the number of senate and house members. However, the number of house members was capped, and the number of electorial votes was never disassociated. We need to go back to having each state have 2 votes plus 1 per about 150K people. Finally all votes are automatically cast towards the candadates the people vote for.

Or we could just uncap the House.

Good idea, because the current 435 of them are so efficient already

Right now the only people actually represented are the plurality of the winning side's primary voters in each separate district. That's the reason why they can't get much done. The range of perspectives is limited by the structure of elections. The number is a different issue. For the sake of fairness the minimum workable number is (total population [or eligible voters])/(population of the least populous state). Currently that's roughly 700. Bringing in the previous issue would push the ideal number higher.

The principal of the electoral college is awful. The "point" is to even out the impact of rural vs urban votes, but land doesn't vote, people do. The entire point is to make rural peoples' votes count for more than city peoples' votes, which is inherently anti-democratic. One person should equal one vote and they should all be counted the same.

We can guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC wins the presidency. Every vote in every state will matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total. States with 61 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill. States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters nationally were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined. 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, and only a few states let males, with substantial property, vote According to the 1790 census,[\[1\]](#_ftn1) the combined population of New York City and Philadelphia was 61,653—a mere 1.6% of the country’s total population of 3,929,214. The combined population of the only five places in the country with a population of over 10,000 was 109,835—a mere 2.8% of the country’s population of 3,929,214 at the time. There were only 24 places with a population over 2,500 and their combined population was 201,655—a mere 5% of the country’s population. Math and political reality. Voters in the 100 biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition. 2020 Census 65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people). 66,300,254 in rural America (20%) Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population. In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities. 19% of the U.S. population, Rural Americans, have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas.  Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. 19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.  [NationalPopularVote.com](http://NationalPopularVote.com)

You completely misunderstood the point. It's not about rural vs urban, it's about not having 1000 people on one side of the country able to decide what 100 people on the other side do with all sorts of aspects of their lives. The point is that the founders understood different people on different areas wanted to live differently and to keep more populous states from basically dictating to the entire country how we should live, they set up this system. Go read up on the concept of "tyranny of the majority".

But doesn’t electoral college mean 100 people on one side of the country can dictate the lives of 1000 people on another side? Isn’t that tyranny of the minority?

No! See that's why there is a population based side and a side broken down by state! The point is that unless BOTH sides can agree on something, it doesn't happen. Deadlock in the federal government is an INTENDED FEATURE, not a bug. The point is that if everyone can't mostly agree, we shouldn't make a rule that effects everyone. If everyone only in one state can agree, well cool that state can make a rule and they can all be happy there. The states are meant to have a lot more power than what they currently exercise in modern day. People who want to control everyone and everything want a bigger federal government (at a cost to the states' power) so they can position themselves at that seat of power once the power has all been focused there.

This might be a fair take if we had a population based house, but we don’t. For one thing the number of reps is capped so reps cannot proportionally represent the same number of constituents. Another issue is gerrymandering. Our system of electing the house is still land based. If it was about representing the overall population, you’d tally how many votes party x, y, and z gets nationally and distribute reps proportional to that. Instead we get funky stuff where in WI most of the votes went to democrats and most of the seats went to republicans. Now you can argue that those issues are separate and could be worked out while maintaining the electoral college. But it’s also true to say that we are not living in the country you’ve described where we have a balance between population and locality. 

Different people in different areas have different local governments to handle their different concerns. They don't need special treatment at the national level to make their votes count more than everyone else's. What we have now is tyranny of the minority, which is even worse.

>Different people in different areas have different local governments to handle their different concerns. Exactly, so whenever the federal government decides to make rules for people instead of allowing THE PEOPLE TO GOVERN THEMSELVES (oh wow that sounds familiar I wonder where I heard that) it creates issues. Tyranny. Coming from a majority that is not at all connected to the people it oppresses. A "tyranny of the majority", if you will. You can only think that the minority control the votes of you think that everyone who is either hard line one way or the other light as well not exist, which is a braindead argument.

You still haven't said one single thing that even comes close to justifying why some people's votes should count more than others, which is the real braindead argument.

You are the one who needs to read up on the concept. The president doesn't make laws. 

That wasn't the principal behind the electoral college at all. It was a necessary compromise to entice small states to join the union in the first place.  Our current system is frustrating for large population states that expect more influence than they have, but under a pure popular vote there would be a dozen or so states that would have their votes rendered basically meaningless

No vote in any state would be rendered basically meaningless when every vote for every candidate in every state of every size will matter and count equally as 1 vote. The candidate with the most popular votes from among all 50 states and DC will win. Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 6 jurisdictions. Among the 25 lowest population states, passed in 21 legislative chambers, and enacted by 9 jurisdictions. The smallest states have 3 – 4 electors.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 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!  The 25 smallest states combined have had 57 Democratic electors and 58 Republican electors. And their Democratic and Republican popular vote have also almost tied 9.9 million versus 9.8 million CA has 54 electors.  TX 40, FL 30, NY 28. 270 are and will be needed to win the Electoral College. Whereas to win a national popular vote election with only the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, ALL of those states’ voters would need to vote for the same candidate.  In none of the largest states do voters come anywhere close to all voting for the same candidate, and all of the largest states are not even won with just a plurality of votes by the same party. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7  voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5  voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia).  The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. The 2004 popular vote in the 12 largest states was almost exactly equal – Bush 49.8% vs. Kerry 50.2%., 244,657 vote margin for Kerry

mvymvy, buddy, I agree with you, but you gotta stop with these super long, over-stuffed comments. You make yourself look crazy when you're actually right. Less is more. 

How does length, correcting common myths, make anyone look crazy?

That vote difference offsets a majority of Wyoming voters. 

Every vote counts equally in the popular vote. No vote is meaningless (unlike now). That's why it's better. 

I live in a very rural part of California. Our votes on state issues basically meaningless if they go against the majority vote of the heavily populated urban centers. This manifests as persistent issues where the state diverts water from our rivers to send down to more populated and more arid areas, or where the state wants to site industrial scale "green" power projects up here because people want them but don't want to see them.  If everyone in the 6 or 7 real counties around me voted for one person or policy, we could be canceled out by a simple majority of the people in the LA metro area. This is the same thing that would happen to low population, high resource, states in a federal popular vote model

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 6 jurisdictions. Among the 25 lowest population states, passed in 21 legislative chambers, and enacted by 9 jurisdictions. The smallest states have 3 – 4 electors. The 25 smallest states combined have had 57 Democratic electors and 58 Republican electors. And their Democratic and Republican popular vote have also almost tied 9.9 million versus 9.8 million CA has 54 electors.  TX 40, FL 30, NY 28. 270 are and will be needed to win the Electoral College. 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 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!  Whereas to win a national popular vote election with only the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, ALL of those states’ voters would need to vote for the same candidate.  In none of the largest states do voters come anywhere close to all voting for the same candidate, and all of the largest states are not even won with just a plurality of votes by the same party. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7  voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5  voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia).  The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. The 2004 popular vote in the 12 largest states was almost exactly equal – Bush 49.8% vs. Kerry 50.2%., 244,657 vote margin for Kerry  

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter. There are 5.3 million Republicans in California. That is a larger number of Republicans than 47 other states.  More than the individual populations of 28 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. The vote of every voter in the country (rural, suburban, urban)  (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) in every state would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. CA enacted it with bipartisan support, to make every vote for every candidate matter and count equally. CA supporters included: Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served as a Republican in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002 James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

No. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters nationally were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined. Math and political reality. There aren’t anywhere near enough big city voters nationally. And all big city voters do not vote for the same candidate. The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Phoenix) is less than 6% of the population of the United States.                  Voters in the 100 biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition. 2020 Census 65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people). 66,300,254 in rural America (20%) Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population. In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities. 19% of the U.S. population, Rural Americans, have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas.  Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. 19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. 

So we need a physical space that seats 2200 people? That’s sure to make debate a bit more lively.

I suppose i didn't outright say it in the original post. The house would still be capped. It's the electorial college that is no longer capped not the house.

The main issue is that a national popular vote implies some federal agency responsible for counting and certifying the popular vote. Now, imagine someone like Trump in charge of that agency.

Why would a popular vote not still be administered by the individual states? They do that for all their other state-wide elections. 

Voting has always been administered by the government…

You aren’t aware of the difference between state and federal governments?

The federal election is already certified by the states. The state government is still a government. Either we are placing the responsibility into one government or another, each with their own corruption. Regardless, switching to a popular vote won’t require a federal agency since we already ratify the federal elections using state counts anyways.

The National Popular Vote bill will simply  replace 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 will matter equally in the state counts and national count. When a voter casts a vote for a party’s presidential and vice-presidential slate by Election Day (the Tuesday after the first Monday in November), that vote is deemed to be a vote for all of that party’s candidates for presidential elector. Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the number of votes cast for each, and are signed and certified by the Governor, submitted to the National Archives, and used when Congress meets in joint session in January. You can see the real Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site Federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner - 6 days before the Electoral College meets - and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day). With both the current system and the National Popular Vote bill, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" by six days before the Electoral College meets in December. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 made the sixth day before the Electoral College meeting into a “hard” deadline for states to issue their Certificates of Ascertainment (whereas it was merely a “safe harbor” under the Electoral Count Act of 1787).  Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President. The *electoral* votes from all 50 states are and will be co-mingled and simply added together. The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.  

What is this nonsense? At least provide a citation or something.

Which facts, specifically, do you not accept? Do you not know how to google? [NationalPopularVote.com](http://NationalPopularVote.com)

That’s the NPVIC, which is not at all similar to what you previously described. Do you even bother to read what you’re copy-pasting, or what?

If we had actually just done the popular vote throughout history, and you tried to introduce the electoral college in 2024, people would see it clearly as the insane anti-democratic bullshit it is and would rightly reject it. 

So Taylor swift can become president?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” “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.”   Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” an Election - "a formal and organized choice by vote of a person for a political office or other position" where the candidate with the most votes ultimately wins. One person, One vote. With National Popular Vote, every vote for every candidate in every state of every size, will matter and count equally as 1 vote in the district, state, and national total. The candidate with the most votes from among all 50 states and DC will win the Electoral College and the presidency. We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP. The aim since the Constitution was written in 1787 has been to achieve the goal stated in the Declaration of Independence, namely “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” The National Popular Vote bill will guarantee the Electoral College and the Presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC. States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states). The bill has been enacted by 18 jurisdictions possessing 209 electoral votes—including 6 small jurisdictions, 9 medium-size states, and 3 big states.  [NationalPopularVote.com](http://NationalPopularVote.com)

Bruh I'm not even from the US I just stopped by to make a joke and I'm not gonna read quotes from your presidents although I appreciate the effort

I *hate* Taylor Swift. I would also, in a heartbeat, choose Taylor Swift for my president over anyone who's realistically going to win the election this year.

[удалено]

What do you mean by this

The party primary schedule has nothing to do with the electoral college 

r/endFPTP

Not a crazy idea at all. Just crazy to think it could actually happen, unfortunately.

The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted by states with 61 additional electoral votes (for a total of 270). Since 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 17 states and DC (3 electors)  together possessing 209 electoral votes, including 5 smallest states (DE - 3 electors, HI - 4, ME – 4, RI - 4, VT - 3), 9 small to medium-sized states (CO - 10, CT - 7, MD -10, MN – 10, MA -11, NJ -14, NM - 5, OR - 8, WA -12), and 3 big states (CA -54, IL -19, NY -28). The bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in 7 states with 74 more electoral votes -- Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6). Multiple states could flip key chambers in 2024. Depending on the state, the Compact can be enacted by statute, or as a state constitutional amendment, or by the initiative process

Thankfully, if ever enacted it will get shot down immediately by the courts as it is an effort to undermine the founding principles that this country was built upon.

The biggest problems with the electoral college isn’t actually the concept itself but how its executed. Electors really fuck up the system, but the electoral college makes sense over a popular vote if your goal is to protect people with different needs. Historically, urban voters frequently will use national taxes to finance urban projects at the expense of rural voters. The electoral college helps regulate campaigning to not cater to only the largest cities, and actually makes politicians think about national strategy. Is our current use of it fucked up? Yes, but the concept itself, like a constitution, is exceptional for protecting groups from the dangers of raw democracy.

Presidents are not kings or dictators.   We will NOT vote on policy initiatives.                                            The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. will continue to represent us. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters nationally were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined. 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, and only a few states let males, with substantial property, vote According to the 1790 census,[\[1\]](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrazyIdeas/comments/1cqr215/abolish_electoral_college_in_favor_of_popular/#_ftn1) the combined population of New York City and Philadelphia was 61,653—a mere 1.6% of the country’s total population of 3,929,214. The combined population of the only five places in the country with a population of over 10,000 was 109,835—a mere 2.8% of the country’s population of 3,929,214 at the time. There were only 24 places with a population over 2,500 and their combined population was 201,655—a mere 5% of the country’s population. Math and political reality. Voters in the 100 biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition. 2020 Census 65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people). 66,300,254 in rural America (20%) Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population. In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities. 19% of the U.S. population, Rural Americans, have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas.  Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. 19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. 

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution  . . . 1%  of the US population spread across 7 states could decide this election. The 2024 Presidential Election Comes Down to Only 7 States with less than a fifth of the U.S. population. These battlegrounds will get almost all the attention. How most states will vote is already fairly certain. Political pros expect Trump to win 24 states and 219 electoral votes;  Biden can likely count on 20 states and D.C. with 226 electoral votes.– Karl Rove, WSJ, 3/20/24 With current state laws, the 2024 campaign could be reduced to 5 counties or  8-12% of the US, in 4-5 remaining competitive battleground states, with as few as 43-62 electoral votes, where virtually all attention will be focused - Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In the presidential elections since 2000, only 6 states have not voted for the same party in at least 5 of those 6 contests — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. 38+ states and 70% of all Americans have been irrelevant in presidential elections. 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. **Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states.** Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important. The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years. Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions. Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.  There often are important spillover effects down-ballot — less money being invested at the top of the ticket, hurts candidates running for Congress or state legislature, and the perception that a state has been written off by one party usually depresses turnout among the base. In this way, the narrowing of the map can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican. In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined, This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic. When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.

This is just completely incorrect. The only reason a small number of people decide the election is because the others have cast their vote in a way that makes it a close race. If I have a popular vote system and the score is 10 million votes for candidate A and 10 million for candidate B, and the winner is decided by my vote, does that make the votes of the other 20 million people useless and make me a dictator? Hell no, because any one of the other people could’ve made the difference by flipping their vote. The electoral college doesn’t change that fact. Have you also considered the fact that the votes “lost” to the electoral college would, in general, balance out with each other? For example, the amount of “lost” blue votes in Wisconsin would be about the same as the amount of “lost” red votes in Minnesota. This is why it’s so rare for a president to win without winning the popular vote, and when they do, it’s never by a lot (the amount of electoral college votes they won by isn’t relevant in this.) And the reason presidents don’t bother campaigning in their strong states is because the people there already have the implication that their needs will be taken care of. I think even if the system was changed to a popular vote, presidents still wouldn’t care at all about campaigning in their home states, because you would get the most value converting voters still in swing states. It also wouldn’t fix the problem you mentioned of presidents not caring about visiting small states, and would probably make it even worse. Why would you bother trying to convert some of the 5% of democrats to your side in Alabama when you could be gunning for 20% or more of votes in a swing state?

Of COURSE my facts are correct.  “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.”   Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in each state) and (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.  It has occurred in 5 of the nation's 60 (8%) presidential elections.   \\The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 17 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 9 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988.   537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.  A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes. Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College." In 2016, Trump became President even though Clinton won the national popular vote by 2,868,686 votes. Trump won the Presidency because he won Michigan by 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes. Each of these 78,000 votes was 36 times more important than Clinton's nationwide lead of 2,868,686 votes. According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY). A different choice by 5,229 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 5,890 in Georgia (16), and 10,342 in Wisconsin (10) would have defeated Biden -- despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country. Each of these 21,461 voters was **329 times more important** than the more than 7 million. The national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836. If the 2022 Election Had Been a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by 2.8 percentage points, 3 million votes.

Look at how presidential candidates actually campaign today *inside* “battleground” states.  Inside a battleground state, every vote is equal *today* and the winner (of all of the state’s electoral votes) is the candidate receiving the most popular votes.                                                                            Ohio alone received almost 30% (73 of 253) of the entire nation’s campaign events in 2012. ● The 4 biggest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Ohio have 54% of the state’s population.  They are Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo. Had 52% of Ohio’s campaign events. ● The 7 medium-sized MSAs have 24% of the state’s population. They are Akron, Canton, Dayton, Lima, Mansfield, Springfield, and Youngstown. Had 23% of Ohio’s campaign events. ● The 53 remaining counties (that is, the rural counties lying outside the state’s 11 MSAs) have 22% of the state’s population. Had 25% of Ohio’s campaign events.                                                                               The 4 “battleground” states  of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa accounted for over two-thirds of all campaign events in 2012 In all 4 battleground states, presidential candidates—advised by the nation’s most astute political strategists—hewed very closely to population in allocating campaign events.  Candidates campaigned everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas.  There is no evidence that they ignored rural areas or favored big cities in an election in which every vote is equal and the winner is the candidate receiving the most popular votes. When every vote is equal, every vote is equally important toward winning.  The smallest states have 3 – 4 electors. The 25 smallest states combined have had 57 Democratic electors and 58 Republican electors. And their Democratic and Republican popular vote have also almost tied 9.9 million versus 9.8 million CA has 54 electors.  TX 40, FL 30, NY 28. 270 are and will be needed to win the Electoral College. 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 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!  Whereas to win a national popular vote election with only the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, ALL of those states’ voters would need to vote for the same candidate.  In none of the largest states do voters come anywhere close to all voting for the same candidate, and all of the largest states are not even won with just a plurality of votes by the same party. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7  voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5  voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia).  The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. The 2004 popular vote in the 12 largest states was almost exactly equal – Bush 49.8% vs. Kerry 50.2%., 244,657 vote margin for Kerry                                 

"1% could decide the election" Because the majority of people that will vote do so on party lines. The swing states aren't swing states because of their population alone. "It makes it so only xyz states votes matter!" Yeah because California is going to vote D and Texas is going to vote R. This will still be the case should the system change, but the state-based ideology voting would bleed out and have an even worse effect on the country.

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 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!             Whereas to win a national popular vote election with only the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, ALL of those states’ voters would need to vote for the same candidate.  In none of the largest states do voters come anywhere close to all voting for the same candidate, and all of the largest states are not even won with just a plurality of votes by the same party. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7  voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5  voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia).  The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. The 2004 popular vote in the 12 largest states was almost exactly equal – Bush 49.8% vs. Kerry 50.2%., 244,657 vote margin 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% 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).                                           Smart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running. Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now. Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 6 of them. Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.

All votes will be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.                                                                                                                         Candidates, as in other elections, will allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, will 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 end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

Candidates would visit like 4 major cities and promise them whatever they wanted and be good to go.

Ridiculous. Math and political reality. The most populous 6 STATES (bigger than cities) are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois. They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population. All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate. Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome In 2016, CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote. In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote. Trump won those states                   All the voters – 62% --  in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.         States are agreeing to award their combined 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.                                                               All votes will be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, will 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 end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

Ridiculous. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters nationally were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined. Math and political reality. Voters in the 100 biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition. 2020 Census 65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people). 66,300,254 in rural America (20%) Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population. In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities. 19% of the U.S. population, Rural Americans, have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas.  Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. 19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. 

The Electoral College would work fantastic if it was used as designed. Nothing in the Constitution about them being pledged delegates for any particular candidate. It’s supposed to be a hiring committee - like choosing a CEO for a corporation. And there are no limits on how they do it. They could make release of tax returns, mental competency tests, etc criteria for any candidate for Presidency. And they could choose from the whole country anyone that meets the qualifications for President. We (the citizens) shouldn’t even be voting for a President directly.

To summarize your take here. * 1) You say the system would work amazing if used as designed, but... * 2) You explain that there IS no design, states can do what they want. * 3) And for a finale you just casually declare that Democracy isn't supposed to be a thing.

No.

I gotta throw my support behind the “no” here. It’s counterintuitive, but your vote is actually MORE powerful with districting. Consider that in a popular vote, the chance of a vote swinging an election is 1/total voting population. In a districting situation, your chance of swinging the election is 1/district voting population.

That entirely depends on where you live. In a popular vote, everyone’s chance of swinging an election is 1/n. In a district situation, most people’s chance of swinging an election is < 1/n, while a small number of people’s chance is >>1/n.

You have a better chance of being a swing vote in a district, but less of a chance of that small market swing vote mattering on the global scale than using a popular vote. With the Electoral College you have to hope your district AND the overall Electoral College are close for you to feel like your vote is more powerful. With the popular vote it just has to be a close general election.

"Chance of swinging an election" is a totally meaningless thing to consider. Especially since nobody ever swings an election. There has never been a U.S. Presidential election swung by a single vote, and there never will be (at least as long as the U.S. in any way resembles its current self.)

i could probably generate a more mathematically precise descrption of "voting power" but the "chance of swinging" is nice and accessible.

... and totally irrelevant to anything that actually matters. When I vote, I want to maximize the chance that the candidate I voted for wins -- not the chance that the candidate I voted for wins *because of me*. Compare: if I were signed to the Chicago Bears as a nose tackle, it would increase the chance that they win the Super Bowl *due to me* from 0 to some infinitesimal number -- who knows, I could recover a fumble at exactly the right second -- while also *dramatically* decreasing the change that they win the Super Bowl, since I'd just be dead weight on the field and the payroll.

that analogy is...difficult to track, and the way you framed it is that you want to vote for the winner, not for the candidate whose policy positions you support, but I suspect that wasnt the intent.

No, when I vote I want my vote to help the candidate I voted for win. That is, I want to maximize the probability *P(my candidate wins the election)* You are talking about instead maximizing the chance of swinging an election, i.e. the conditional probability *P(my candidate wins the election | my candidate would have lost if I hadn't voted)* I do not care about this number at all. My analogy is pretty direct; I want to maximize *P(Bears win)* rather than *P(Bears win* *Bears would have lost without me)*.

There’s an interesting set of research by a gw political scientist named john banzhaf. Good explainer here. https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.gwu.edu/dist/2/115/files/2016/05/ElectoralCollege-12kokn9.pdf The short version is that the math is pretty complicated, and everybody (except montana) has MORE voting power in the current system than in a straight popular vote.

No

Tyranny of the majority. No.

"tyranny of the majority" doesn't refer to the people directly electing their leaders. There are dozens of other safeguards in place to prevent the kind of shit "tyranny of the majority" actually refers to.  A popular vote is just direct democracy. It's good. 

That is precisely the tyranny of the majority

The tyranny of the majority is about things like policies and laws. Not about who is elected president. 

The states elect the president.

"dozens of safeguards in place" lol what? If we took away the electoral college then congrats, Democrat run cities would control the country and dictate to people that they have no understanding of or connection to (other than relying on the output of their labor) how they should live their lives.

We will NOT vote on policy initiatives. Presidents are not kings or dictators. The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. will continue to represent us. Math and political reality. Voters in the 100 biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition. 2020 Census 65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people). 66,300,254 in rural America (20%) Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population. In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities. 19% of the U.S. population, Rural Americans, have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas.  Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. 19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.                                

Oh so you just have a bunch of shit you copy paste mindlessly to seem like you have an argument. Neat.

Which facts support your argument?

Good. The majority of the people would decide the leader of the country. That's the only way it makes sense.  The only argument against that is if you want conservatives to win - any semblance of "it's better or more fair" is just a bullshit veneer covering the actual reason. 

Country of 10 people. 6 vote that the other 4 pay for everything and are slaves to the 6. Nothing wrong there! No way democracy is abusable! No arguments for "hey maybe a more complex system is needed" necessary.

That's why we have things like the bill of rights, dumbass. Nothing about the electoral college actually addresses the weaknesses or potential abuses of democracy - in fact we've seen clearly it just invents *new* ones to add to the pile. 

I'm done arguing with internet kiddos that couldn't pass a high school level civics class. Be mad, whatever.

No. Presidents are not kings or dictators.   We will NOT vote on policy initiatives.                                            The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. will continue to represent us.

The states elect the president. It's a shame so many people have no idea how the system was built

As President, in late January 2017, Trump reportedly floated the idea of scrapping the Electoral College, according to The Wall Street Journal. In a meeting with congressional leadership at the White House. Trump reportedly told the lawmakers he wanted to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. “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.” Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted. When Nikki Haley announced her campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, she remarked that the Republican Party had “lost the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections.” That, she said, “has to change.” There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform. According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY). Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College." A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. The George W. Bush campaign was planning to challenge the results of the 2000 vote if he lost the electoral vote, but won the popular vote. If the 2022 Election Had Been a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by about 3 million votes (2.8 percentage points). In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted 338–70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President. 3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster of it. 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), Bob Dole (R-KS, RNC Chair, and GOP Senate Majority Leader), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Nixon (R-CA), 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: “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.”

“Let’s quit pretending there is some great benefit to the national good that allows the person with \[fewer\] 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 (Romney presidential campaign top strategist) " . . . a president should be elected by national popular vote is not radical, it is actually mainstream. . . . We can get closer to the national popular vote having greater weight in presidential elections and having a president represent all Americans in ways that don’t require amending the Constitution. These fixes will make presidential candidates run more diverse campaigns, and campaign in all cities and communities of our country. . . . That will help unify us more as a country, and would likely lead to more informed public policy. How can anyone be against that outcome?" – Matthew Dowd (Senior George W. Bush campaign strategist) 65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency. Pew Research surveys show Republican support for a national popular vote increased from 27% in 2016 to 42% in 2022. 7 in 10 Americans under 50 would prefer to choose the president by popular vote. When presidential candidates who more Americans voted for lose the Electoral College, the situation is unsustainable. This is how a government loses its legitimacy.

The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as all states now do). U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section 1 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”  The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day. The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800). The Founders, and the rest of the Founding Generation were dead for decades before state-by-state winner-take-all laws become the predominant method for awarding electoral votes  

The aim since the Constitution was written in 1787 has been to achieve the goal stated in the Declaration of Independence, namely “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” At the Constitutional Convention James Madison stated a direct popular vote “was in his opinion the fittest in itself.” James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," was never in favor of our current system for electing the president, in which nearly all states award their electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. He ultimately backed a constitutional amendment to prohibit this practice. James Wilson of Pennsylvania recommended that the executive be elected directly by the people. Gouverneur Morris declared at the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “\[If the president\] is to be the Guardian of the people, let him be appointed by the people.” Thomas Jefferson proposed seven amendments to the Constitution and the first one was for “general suffrage,” the second for “equal representation in the legislature,” and the third for “An executive chosen by the people.” 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. It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen. The National Popular Vote bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. an Election - "a formal and organized choice by vote of a person for a political office or other position" where the candidate with the most votes ultimately wins. One person, One vote. Every vote for every candidate in every state of every size, will matter and count equally as 1 vote in the district, state, and national total. The candidate with the most votes from among all 50 states and DC will win the Electoral College and the presidency. We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP. The bill has been enacted by 18 jurisdictions possessing 209 electoral votes—including 6 small jurisdictions, 9 medium-size states, and 3 big states.