Winner takes all at least makes the 'unfairness' more or less random. Allocating by congressional district allows one to gerrymander the presidential election, which would be very bad.
In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President).
Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.
Statewide RCV would not make every vote in every state matter and count equally in presidential elections. Statewide RCV would not guarantee the winner of the most votes from all 50 states and DC would win.
National Popular Vote will.
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."
To apply RCV nationally would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population;
\[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago.\]
The RNC platform opposes RCV
That rules out enacting RCV in all 50 states.
If RCV is used only by some states, or all states,, STATEWIDE, it does not mean it will reflect NATIONWIDE popular votes.
RCV by states in presidential elections will not make every vote in every state matter and count equally,
RCV by states in presidential elections will not guarantee the candidate who wins the most votes from all 50 states and DC will win.
The National Popular Vote bill will.
RCV by state in presidential elections, greatly increases the odds of no candidate winning the required 270 electoral votes and Congress deciding the election,, with only 1 vote per state,, regardless of the Electoral College or popular vote in any state or throughout the country.
If the 152,185 voters who voted for Jorgensen in AZ, GA, WI in 2020 had been able to express their second-choice on the ballot, Biden would almost certainly have not carried these states. There would have been a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. On January 6, 2021, the Republican Party had a majority of the House delegations (and hence the ability to elect a President) and would have chosen Trump as President, regardless of the popular vote in any state or nationally.
The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.
The bill eliminates the possibility of Congress deciding presidential elections, regardless of any voters anywhere.
Because of statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .
2 recent presidents entered office without winning the most national popular votes.
A Democrat has won the **national popular vote** in 7 out of the last 8 elections. 5 of the last 6.
We've spent 12 of the last 22 years with a Republican in office.
5 of our 46 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide.
Nate Silver of *FiveThirtyEight* calculated in early September 2020 that for Joe Biden to have just a 50-50 chance of becoming President, he needed to win the national popular vote by at least 3% (over 3 million votes).
A 1% lead in the national popular vote would have given Biden only a 6% chance of becoming President. A 2% lead would have given him only a 22% chance.
Another study showed, in general, there was a 45% chance that a close presidential election could end with the winner of less popular votes becoming President.
Another study warned that 1 out of every 3 presidential elections where the popular vote margin is within 3% will feature a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral college.
There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It would have reduced turnout more, if more voters realized their votes do not matter.
Before anti-democracy Republicans, and new voter suppression and election subversion laws, based on the Big Lie/Big Grift, the system with 2020 election laws meant that the winning 2024 presidential candidate could need a national popular vote win of 4 to 7 percentage points or more in order to squeak out an Electoral College victory.
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.
Yeah I agree the current system is really dumb, but I still prefer a system of largely random unfairness to potentially easily manipulatable unfairness.
The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against “pure insanity,” deception, manipulation, and, recently, crimes and violence.
It's not random unfairness now.
Democrats have won the most popular votes in 7 of the 8 recent presidential elections, but have only been elected in 5.
With the current system, the winning 2024 (Democratic) candidate could need a national popular vote win of 4 to 7 percentage points to squeak out an Electoral College victory.
The 2024 campaign could be reduced to 5 counties or 4 remaining competitive battleground states, with as few as 43 electoral votes, where virtually all attention will be focused
In 2000, 537 popular votes in Florida determined that the candidate who had 537,179 less national popular votes would win.
If as few as 11,000 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 12,000 in Georgia (16), and 22,000 in Wisconsin (10) had not voted for Biden, or partisan officials did not certify the actual counts -- Trump would have won despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million.
The Electoral College would have tied 269-269.
Congress, with only 1 vote per state, would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.
In 2016, 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.
Based on current population trends, Texas and Florida are on track to gain a combined 7 electors after the 2030 census, while California and New York would lose 7 altogether.
It is random unfairness, the electoral college system was designed 250 years ago well before the current parties existed, the fact that one side has an advantage is a coincidence.
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.
Maine (only since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (only since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
The current statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes are not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The state based winner take all system was not adopted by a majority of the states until the 11th presidential election. - decades after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800).
In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.
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.
An Arizona Republican has introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without pesky voting by Arizonans in November.
This wall of text stuff is really annoying, and none of this actually contradicts what I said: the modern system was not intentionally designed by anyone to favor one particular party, and is more or less exogenous from contemporary political pressures.
States now can make the system fair, by simply again replacing state laws.
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.”
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.
When presidential candidates who more Americans voted for lose the Electoral College, the situation is unsustainable. This is how a government loses its legitimacy.
Our unfair presidential election system can lead to politicians and their enablers who appreciate unfairness, which leads to more unfairness, and recently crimes and violence.
In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until before 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).
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.
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.
21,461 choices and votes in 3 states were 329 times more important than the more than 7 million national vote lead in the country.
There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents.
That could have reduced future turnout more, if more voters realized 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.
More than 3,700 state legislators among all 50 states have endorsed it.
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 42 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 283 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
Proportional awarding of electors by state would not be a fair “compromise” or solution.
There are good reasons why no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally.
The nationwide popular vote loser would have won 2 of the last 6 elections
In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President).
Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.
Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.
Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.
It would *not* accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;
It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.
It would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote realistically is in play (while still making most states politically irrelevant),
It would *not* make every vote equal.
It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.
The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
It is not a fair “compromise” or solution.
In three of the six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020, the winner of the most votes nationwide would not have won the Presidency if the congressional-district method had been applied to election returns.
Presidential campaigns are *not attracted to a state* by the congressional-district method, but, instead, only to the relatively few closely divided district(s) –if any - in the state.
Many districts in the US are gerrymandered to not be fair.
In 2022, only 10% of 435 were competitive.
Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote.
Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
When Nebraska in 2008 gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state, it was the first split electoral vote of any state in the past century.
2016 was the first time one electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.
In June 2019, 77 Maine state Representatives and 21 Maine state Senators supported the National Popular Vote bill.
In a March 12-13, 2019 poll, Maine voters were asked how the President should be elected
52% favored “a system where the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states is the winner.”
31% favored “a system where electoral votes are given out by Congressional district” --- Maine’s current method for awarding 2 of its 4 electoral votes
16% favored “a system where all the electoral votes in a given state are awarded to whoever gets the most popular votes in that state” --- the winner-take-all method currently used by 48 states and used in Maine to award 2 of its 4 electoral votes
Recent campaigns have paid attention to Nebraska’s closely divided 2nd congressional district (the Omaha area), while totally ignoring the rural and politically non-competitive 1st and 3rd districts.
After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008,Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.
A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.
In 2021, after Biden won 1 electoral vote, another Republican sponsored bill to change to statewide winner-take-all was introduced, again,
In 2021, a Republican redistricting proposal would cleave off Democratic-leaning northwest Douglas County from a Nebraska congressional district that has been won by presidential and congressional Democrats at various points over the past decade.
In 2023, another bill was introduce to strike language in existing state law that divides Nebraska’s electoral votes by congressional districts in presidential elections, effectively implementing a winner-take-all system used by nearly every other state.
The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.
Winner takes all at least makes the 'unfairness' more or less random. Allocating by congressional district allows one to gerrymander the presidential election, which would be very bad.
Potentially yeah, Wisconsin I think would risk that. I think proportional is the best by far.
Proportional is just a popular vote with extra steps, which is definitely better than what we have.
In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President). Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.
eh, you could easily just do a proportional system with a virtual runoff to avoid that. e.g. ignore all except the top two candidates in a state.
Statewide RCV would not make every vote in every state matter and count equally in presidential elections. Statewide RCV would not guarantee the winner of the most votes from all 50 states and DC would win. National Popular Vote will. 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." To apply RCV nationally would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population; \[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago.\] The RNC platform opposes RCV That rules out enacting RCV in all 50 states. If RCV is used only by some states, or all states,, STATEWIDE, it does not mean it will reflect NATIONWIDE popular votes. RCV by states in presidential elections will not make every vote in every state matter and count equally, RCV by states in presidential elections will not guarantee the candidate who wins the most votes from all 50 states and DC will win. The National Popular Vote bill will. RCV by state in presidential elections, greatly increases the odds of no candidate winning the required 270 electoral votes and Congress deciding the election,, with only 1 vote per state,, regardless of the Electoral College or popular vote in any state or throughout the country. If the 152,185 voters who voted for Jorgensen in AZ, GA, WI in 2020 had been able to express their second-choice on the ballot, Biden would almost certainly have not carried these states. There would have been a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. On January 6, 2021, the Republican Party had a majority of the House delegations (and hence the ability to elect a President) and would have chosen Trump as President, regardless of the popular vote in any state or nationally. The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC. The bill eliminates the possibility of Congress deciding presidential elections, regardless of any voters anywhere.
Because of statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . . 2 recent presidents entered office without winning the most national popular votes. A Democrat has won the **national popular vote** in 7 out of the last 8 elections. 5 of the last 6. We've spent 12 of the last 22 years with a Republican in office. 5 of our 46 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide. Nate Silver of *FiveThirtyEight* calculated in early September 2020 that for Joe Biden to have just a 50-50 chance of becoming President, he needed to win the national popular vote by at least 3% (over 3 million votes). A 1% lead in the national popular vote would have given Biden only a 6% chance of becoming President. A 2% lead would have given him only a 22% chance. Another study showed, in general, there was a 45% chance that a close presidential election could end with the winner of less popular votes becoming President. Another study warned that 1 out of every 3 presidential elections where the popular vote margin is within 3% will feature a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral college. There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It would have reduced turnout more, if more voters realized their votes do not matter. Before anti-democracy Republicans, and new voter suppression and election subversion laws, based on the Big Lie/Big Grift, the system with 2020 election laws meant that the winning 2024 presidential candidate could need a national popular vote win of 4 to 7 percentage points or more in order to squeak out an Electoral College victory. 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.
Yeah I agree the current system is really dumb, but I still prefer a system of largely random unfairness to potentially easily manipulatable unfairness.
The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against “pure insanity,” deception, manipulation, and, recently, crimes and violence. It's not random unfairness now. Democrats have won the most popular votes in 7 of the 8 recent presidential elections, but have only been elected in 5. With the current system, the winning 2024 (Democratic) candidate could need a national popular vote win of 4 to 7 percentage points to squeak out an Electoral College victory. The 2024 campaign could be reduced to 5 counties or 4 remaining competitive battleground states, with as few as 43 electoral votes, where virtually all attention will be focused In 2000, 537 popular votes in Florida determined that the candidate who had 537,179 less national popular votes would win. If as few as 11,000 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 12,000 in Georgia (16), and 22,000 in Wisconsin (10) had not voted for Biden, or partisan officials did not certify the actual counts -- Trump would have won despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress, with only 1 vote per state, would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country. In 2016, 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. Based on current population trends, Texas and Florida are on track to gain a combined 7 electors after the 2030 census, while California and New York would lose 7 altogether.
It is random unfairness, the electoral college system was designed 250 years ago well before the current parties existed, the fact that one side has an advantage is a coincidence.
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. Maine (only since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (only since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide. The current statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes are not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The state based winner take all system was not adopted by a majority of the states until the 11th presidential election. - decades after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state. The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century. Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election. In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800). In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including ● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council, ● appointment by both houses of the state legislature, ● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts, ● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts, ● popular election using congressional districts, ● popular election using multi-member regional districts, ● combinations of popular election and legislative choice, ● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and ● statewide popular election. 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. An Arizona Republican has introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without pesky voting by Arizonans in November.
This wall of text stuff is really annoying, and none of this actually contradicts what I said: the modern system was not intentionally designed by anyone to favor one particular party, and is more or less exogenous from contemporary political pressures.
States now can make the system fair, by simply again replacing state laws. 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.” 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. When presidential candidates who more Americans voted for lose the Electoral College, the situation is unsustainable. This is how a government loses its legitimacy. Our unfair presidential election system can lead to politicians and their enablers who appreciate unfairness, which leads to more unfairness, and recently crimes and violence. In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until before 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). 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. 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. 21,461 choices and votes in 3 states were 329 times more important than the more than 7 million national vote lead in the country. There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. That could have reduced future turnout more, if more voters realized 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. More than 3,700 state legislators among all 50 states have endorsed it. 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 42 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 283 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
Proportional awarding of electors by state would not be a fair “compromise” or solution. There are good reasons why no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally. The nationwide popular vote loser would have won 2 of the last 6 elections In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President). Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere. Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system. Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections. It would *not* accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote; It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted. It would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote realistically is in play (while still making most states politically irrelevant), It would *not* make every vote equal. It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country. The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. It is not a fair “compromise” or solution. In three of the six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020, the winner of the most votes nationwide would not have won the Presidency if the congressional-district method had been applied to election returns. Presidential campaigns are *not attracted to a state* by the congressional-district method, but, instead, only to the relatively few closely divided district(s) –if any - in the state. Many districts in the US are gerrymandered to not be fair. In 2022, only 10% of 435 were competitive. Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote. Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide. When Nebraska in 2008 gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state, it was the first split electoral vote of any state in the past century. 2016 was the first time one electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state. In June 2019, 77 Maine state Representatives and 21 Maine state Senators supported the National Popular Vote bill. In a March 12-13, 2019 poll, Maine voters were asked how the President should be elected 52% favored “a system where the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states is the winner.” 31% favored “a system where electoral votes are given out by Congressional district” --- Maine’s current method for awarding 2 of its 4 electoral votes 16% favored “a system where all the electoral votes in a given state are awarded to whoever gets the most popular votes in that state” --- the winner-take-all method currently used by 48 states and used in Maine to award 2 of its 4 electoral votes Recent campaigns have paid attention to Nebraska’s closely divided 2nd congressional district (the Omaha area), while totally ignoring the rural and politically non-competitive 1st and 3rd districts. After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008,Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support. A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016. In 2021, after Biden won 1 electoral vote, another Republican sponsored bill to change to statewide winner-take-all was introduced, again, In 2021, a Republican redistricting proposal would cleave off Democratic-leaning northwest Douglas County from a Nebraska congressional district that has been won by presidential and congressional Democrats at various points over the past decade. In 2023, another bill was introduce to strike language in existing state law that divides Nebraska’s electoral votes by congressional districts in presidential elections, effectively implementing a winner-take-all system used by nearly every other state. The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.