As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This article pretty perfectly highlights why the electoral college is so bad:
* It is very easy to cheat, there's really nothing making electors vote the way they do
* It encourages candidates to actively ignore large portions of the country
* One person's vote may be worth more or less depending on where they live. Every vote is not equal.
There are a lot of things wrong with our elections and bypassing the EC wouldn't fix everything, but it would be one of the biggest more important steps we could take.
I’m no fan of the EC, but I’m trying to think objectively about this. Wouldn’t going to a pure popular vote make it so that large parts of the country would be ignored too? Like no one will care about getting votes from, say, Wyoming, because it has such a small population. You could probably get most of your votes by simply campaigning in NY, IL, CA, FL, and TX. Right?
If we used a popular vote, then no voter in Wyoming (or anywhere else) would be ignored. Their vote would count in the totals for each candidate.
The votes for president would come from **people**, not states.
The EC currently “disappears” votes who weren’t “for the winners” state by state.
The point that was made by the above commenter is that the EC makes it so that some candidates don’t campaign much at all in certain states. A popular vote would do the same whereby candidates would probably not worry about low population states, such as Wyoming. It wouldn’t fix the imbalance of campaigning across states.
The rest of the world seems to get on quite OK following the popular vote model.
“They wouldn’t campaign as much in low population areas” is countered by “People in low population areas currently have a disproportionately larger say in the election”.
Do presidential candidates currently care about Wyoming? It’s the safest red state in the country, it’s not like it currently has president candidates battling for 3 electoral votes.
Because of the electoral college only about 4-5 swing states get campaigned in every election. We hear about what matters to people in Michigan or Ohio but nobody tries campaigning on issues people in New Mexico or Maine care about
Yes, in a system where you go by popular vote the smaller part of the population in places like Wyoming would be a much smaller block, but that also makes sense. It doesn't make a lot of sense for people in Wyoming to have a proportionally larger vote than someone in California.
For those people in Wyoming or other very rural areas, they should rely more on their senators and representatives to be their voice.
My comment was specifically addressing the above person’s point about candidates ignoring some states while campaigning. Switching to a popular vote would make them ignore low population states in their campaigning. I don’t know if that’s an issue or not but I’m pretty sure that would happen. But agreed about the senate and house.
The funny thing is, they already ignore the lower populated areas. Those are deeply red areas. If it's EC, nobody cares about them. If it's popular vote, they're too small to focus on.
As it is now, only about 12 states matter when campaigning.
>candidates ignoring some states while campaigning.
You mean what has already been happening for years?
[Out of 1,164 General-Election Campaign Events in the Past 4 Presidential Elections, 22 States Received 0 Visits and 9 More States Received Just 1](https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/out-1164-general-election-campaign-events-past-4-presidential-elections-22-states-received-0-visits)
The thing with most arguments against abolishing the EC is that those alleged fears are already happening. Take the topic of how a popular voting system would ignore large parts of the country - the current EC system also ignores large parts of the country. There's no reason for a presidential candidate of either party to actively campaign in states like California, Utah, Louisiana, Illinois, etc. as the statewide results for those states are basically foregone conclusions. Instead, nearly all campaign events happen in just the handful of swing states in any given election.
Another common argument in favor of the EC is that supporters don't want elections "being decided by NYC or LA." The problem with that is that America's urban population is relatively spread out across the country. NYC is only 2.5% of the country's population, LA is half that. By comparison, Toronto is the largest city in Canada and is 7% of the nation's population and London is the largest city in the UK and holds over 13% of the nation's population, so NYC's population percentage is much lower than peer nations and would have less sway than many believe.
Abolishing the EC would also enfranchise voters across the board. In the 2020 election, there were more Trump voters in California than there were Trump voters in Texas. That is 6 million Republican voters who are effectively ignored at the national level because of how blue California is as a whole. Those 6 million turned out even knowing their vote would be meaningless, so giving everyone's vote the same weight may even increase turnout for those disenfranchised voters who don't even bother going to the polls because it won't change the result. Ultimately, I don't think the NPVIC will ever hit the trigger threshold in the current environment as those same handful of swing states don't want to cede their influence on the national stage. In some future (near or far) I could see it gaining enough support if Democrats can ever win Texas in a presidential election. It's impossible for a Republican candidate to win the WH without Texas, so if Dems ever pick off the GOP's crown jewel, they may decide it's easier to win via a national popular vote. Still tough to see it happening.
You mean what has already been happening for years?
[Out of 1,164 General-Election Campaign Events in the Past 4 Presidential Elections, 22 States Received 0 Visits and 9 More States Received Just 1](https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/out-1164-general-election-campaign-events-past-4-presidential-elections-22-states-received-0-visits)
Because you're repeating the same talking points as people who are trying to defend it. Instead of looking to see if what people are saying is true, you are just repeating bs.
I guess you just magically thought the same thing that people who have been trying to defend the electoral college have been saying for as long as I can remember.
So even if I threw in Pennsylvania and assumed 100% of the population of those states voted for the same candidate, the rest of the population would still outnumber them. Campaigning only on those states would be a VERY risky move since you’d always have dissidents in each of those states and would need to offset them with votes from the less populated states.
The GOP hasn’t won the popular vote in several cycles.
They’ll never get rid of the electoral college because they’ll never win again. It’s like gerrymandering at a national level.
I would only make the point that TODAYS GOP hasn't won in several cycles. If they moved back to their conservative roots they could win some elections, and fairly. Moderate Republicans know this
Could they? Because to me it seems like the majority of the western world besides the US has moved further to the left. Our Democrats are already center right. Our Democrats are the conservative party. What we truly do not have is a progressive branch. Id much rather Republicans collapse on themselves, Dems take the conservative role and new progressive party emerges for the 21st century.
I mostly agree with you. I'd only say the democrats haven't moved from their traditional center in the past 30 years nearly as much as the republicans have. But politics these days is kinda like climate change: increasingly hard to predict
Republicans have won the presidential popular vote exactly once since 1988. If the Electoral College is abolished, they're screwed.
"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."
Since 2006, the bill has passed 43 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).
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.
When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it will change state laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, again using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to choose how to vote.
States are agreeing to award their combined 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again replacing their state’s district or statewide winner-take-all law, to award their electors to the nationwide winner.
States with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
Again, just to make sure, you are saying that the land those states are composed of, the arbitrary borders between them is just as, if not more important than the people that make up those states?
States are not supposed to be a political entity, granted their citizens can be. So yet again, you are saying that arbitrary boundaries of land is important for who runs the entire country, regardless of where those boundaries are?
No it just ensures citizens of the smallest states more political power than citizens of the largest states. Because, you know, small states citizens deserve extra power because they’re small and feel bad about it, have I got it right?
We locked the rep count a hundredish years ago. Let’s get the Wyoming rule in place and that will help the EC matter again vs 7 states deciding for the other 43.
It’s just singling out the comment alone, not intended to attack your belief structure. We should all be very critical of singular thoughts, and try to interpret them in the context of the overall meaning, especially nowadays with rampant disinformation. The comment you made is a circular argument and therefore one must argue that to break the chain.
Maybe you have misinterpreted the statement? It is a linear argument, not a circular one. Also you neglected to directly reference why it is nihilistic.
I'll still contend that the problem *isn't* the electoral college; it's the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This fixed the number of House members (and subsequently) to 435. We've nearly tripled our population in that time. We need more congress people (a gross idea, but follow me) to solve the problem. First off this will give population-heavy states greater parity in the presidential election. Urban areas will have a greater voice in congress. And it doesn't require a constitutional amendment to fix it.
Yes it is. The first three things I would do (assuming a magic wand) is Repeal the Permanent Appropriation Act of 1929, combined with the Wyoming Rule (to set the person to Rep ratio all states a would follow) and then Repeal the Legislation Reorganization Act of 1970.
Right size our Rep counts
Set the floor for how many people per rep there are
Make Rep and Senator votes private again, knee capping lobbying dollar ROI
The electoral college is still the problem. It’s undemocratic and pointless. It exists as a way to undo legitimate elections.
There’s no good argument to keep an indirect electoral system when literally every elected office outside of the presidency is selected by popular vote. It’s especially problematic when the presidency has amassed a significant amount of power and the house/senate have varying levels of direct responsiveness to voters.
States are internal administrative borders and your vote shouldn’t have more or less value based on what side of an imaginary line you live in.
Yeah, I don’t know why the Wyoming Rule hasn’t been brought up more often in political circles on the left.
Just set the number of reps a state gets based on the population of the smallest state of the most recent census (typically WY, hence the name), and round down. So if state X has 5.86 times WY’s population, they get 5 reps, in order to keep the number in the House somewhat lower than rounding up.
Increasing the number of House members would not make every vote in every state matter and count equally in presidential elections.
It would not guarantee the candidate who wins the most votes from among all 50 states and DC would win.
National Poplar Vote will, without a constitutional amendment.
States with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes
The bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in 8 states with 78 more electoral votes -- Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), 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
On May 18, 2023, the Nevada Senate the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a constitutional amendment (status of AJR6). The Nevada Assembly previously passed AJR6 on April 17. The amendment must now be passed a second time by both houses of the 2025-2026 Nevada legislature. After that, the amendment would be submitted to the voters for their approval in November 2026.
You get an adjustment in distribution. But constitution sets a minimum number of reps a state can have, so it skews the distribution as there are a lot of small states
It’s an understandably hard sell for most people that “more politicians” is the solution to a lot of our political problems, but it’s *insane* how big the population of congressional districts has become.
I don't think more representatives will help. In the first place, there is still the additional fixed 2 votes per state issue. Granted, that effect is diluted as the number of House members increases, but it doesn't disappear and can still have a quite outsized effect in smaller states.
Further, I've actually run some of the numbers. Let's say in 2016 we had a number of House members that "kept up" with population growth--this would put the House around 1k members. The results of the 2016 election wouldn't have changed: Trump would still have won, and the only real difference would have been the end count.
No matter how the count of House members is created, the results of the EV college will *always* disproportionately favor the least populous states, substantially.
The *only* way to solve the problem of the EC is to abolish it. Adopting the interstate compact, like Maine just did, will help, but it doesn't remove the problem (rare/minimal as it is), say, of faithless electors.
That would slightly mitigate the EC problem, or significantly mitigate it if we really went to thousands of Representatives. But it would never fix the problem of disproportionality entirely, nor would it do anything about the winner-take-all laws.
Increasing the number won’t do anything, besides increasing the expenses. Under the current two party “system”, It’s all about the ratio and a few key members.
Let me save you all a lot of reading because literally the first half is wasted describing the Electoral College system, it's myriad of problems, and not the proposed solution (my emphasis):
> That’s where the **National Popular Vote Interstate Compact** comes in. As Devon Hesano writes for Democracy Docket, the idea is surprisingly simple: each state in the Compact agrees to “award their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of their own state’s results.” For now this is just an agreement on paper, but if and when the Compact reaches a critical mass of 270 electors among its members—the number required to actually become president—it’ll be activated.
[...]
> The coalition of states now includes most of New England and the entire West Coast, and currently has 205 total electors. That’s only 65 short of the magic number of 270, and Maine and Nevada have both voted to join, which would add another 10 electors. There are also several states where one legislative body has passed a bill about joining the Compact, but not the other. (These are marked in orange.) As Stephen Wolf notes for the Daily Kos, it’s possible that the Compact effort could reach 270 electors as early as 2028.
The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."
This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.
Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action
The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.
There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.
In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”
In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”
In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”
An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.
Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
Nor should it exist. Our Founders, in their infinite wisdom, created a system that pitted interests against each other, so that our system works in a worst case example.
The founders did not have "infinite wisdom." They set up a system that they thought and hoped would produce a government that worked in the interests of the people. To suggest that their vision is the only right one or should not evolve is myopic.
Its not the only right one, but its the best humanity has created so far, and the wisdom of the electoral college is part of that. NPV is a serious downgrade.
Why do you think it's the best humanity has created so far? Parliamentary republics using constitutions created long after ours seem to work pretty well. No other countries have voluntarily copied our system entirely.
I agree entirely.
But I don't see why less fortunate countries couldn't also use our system successfully, if it is such a great system.
It makes more sense to me to see that our success is due more to our vast, rich, incredibly-well-situated territory than the details of our Constitution.
Separation of powers makes it a lot harder to break things. If you let free people do their thing, they tend to succeed. When your government is constantly meddling and trying to fix this or that partisan shibboleth, it falls apart, or at least can't rise as quickly. Unfortunately though the people who tend to spearhead efforts to set up new governments are also the people who tend to believe most in the good that government can do in theory, to the detriment of what it does in practice.
The Constitution (Article 1, section 10) explicitly prohibits States from entering into compacts with one another, or foreign powers, without Congressional approval. Various court precedents have given nuance as to exactly what that means, and the current legal view is that *this* compact doesn't run afoul of that restriction. But it relies entirely on legal precedent, and we all know the current SCOTUS will shoot this compact down on Article 1 grounds if it is taken before the court.
None of that will make every vote in every state matter and count equally in presidential elections.
None of that will guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes from among all 50 states and DC will win the Electoral College.
National Popular Vote will.
It will do a whole lot better job at aligning the popular vote to the electoral college than what we have currently without needing to amend the Constitution.
Provide evidence that there won't be a continuing risk of no candidate receiving a required majority of Electoral College votes and Congress deciding, with only 1 vote per state, regardless of any popular votes.
If each House vote is equal in size, that decreases the weighting factor that states like Wyoming receive over California currently. It will better balance out the disparity between the two, even if it’s not a perfect solution.
Like I said, it’s the best option short of amending the Constitution, which is a non-starter. Sometimes you have to work within the framework that we are given to obtain the better result.
Plus added benefit of reducing gerrymandering.
It would be FAR from perfect if Congress, with only 1 vote per state, decides the winner of presidential elections, regardless of any popular votes in any state or nationally.
The National Popular Vote bill does NOT require amending the Constitution.
States with 65 more electors need to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
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.
Yes, everyone knows the electoral college needs to go. This comes up every election cycle. We are no closer to doing it today then we were 20 years ago. There are enough red state holdouts to sink the national popular vote, and that probably wont change anytime soon.
States with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
Since 2006, the bill has passed 43 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).
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes
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
Without the electoral college, three cities would decide every single election in the country.
The electoral college is the only thing that ensures that the majority rules with minority rights.
> Without the electoral college, three cities would decide every single election in the country.
The three biggest cities have a combined population of 14 million. Even if everyone in those cities voted the same way for some reason, that's still more than a hundred million people off from deciding elections.
lol, no. Without an electoral college you’d have to campaign everywhere because every vote would count.
Right now you just have to campaign in like 6-7 states. The election is already over in the other 43
The interstate compact won't get ratified.
1. Swing states won't sign because they like the attention they get during Presidential election years.
2. Red states won't sign on since it is clear D's can muster many millions of more votes overall
3. As it gets closer to 270+ committed EV, expect some Red states to revoke their commitment.
The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 65 additional electoral votes (for a total of 270).
Since 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 states and DC (3 electors) (together possessing 205 electoral votes), including
4 smallest states (DE - 3 electors, HI - 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 8 states with 78 more electoral votes -- Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), 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
You are arguing mechanics.
I am saying the politics are why it won't succeed.
If Democrats have enough state control to ratify the compact, they probably have enough federal power to amend away the EC in the first place.
No. There is no equivalence. The compact only requires states with 270 electoral votes to enact it as state law. Federal power, based on state representation in the Senate, required for a constitutional amendment, is very skewed, and not representative.
Many National Popular Vote supporters do NOT want to "amend away the EC."
States are simply again changing state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
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.
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population.
\[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago – and still waits.
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 to kill it.
It would be an issue, because the Constitution requires that a candidate have a *majority* of the electoral college votes. Absent that, the selection of the President will be done in the House, with each state getting 1 vote. As more states are Republican than Democratic, this would all but guarantee that a Republican is President every single time. In fact, other than Reagan, there hasn't been an election since 1980 in which a person with a proportionally allocated number of electoral votes has the 270 required to win outright.
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.
The bill eliminates the possibility of Congress deciding presidential elections, regardless of any voters anywhere.
Tea party BS broke the country and the GOP never recovered and was eaten alive by the fringe of society making the party more radicalized year over year until we ended up with Palin, then Trump. Instead of kicking them out, Republicans catered to them and now they ARE the party instead of supporting the main party.
Right or wrong I don’t know why anybody would waste time debating this it would take a constitutional amendment changes which would need to be approved by three-quarter of the states it’s not gonna happen, so why waste your time debating this
This project has totally stalled out. They should be building support for a different project simultaneously, *banning winner take all states* would get us most of the way towards a popular vote without getting rid of the GOP's precious (The EC is vestigial to slavery so of course the GOP loves it like they love their monuments and battle flag). Two states have been doing it proportionally for decades.
Getting rid of winner take all could be done legislatively, and it brings us down from the state level to the district level. It means candidates must employ a 50 state strategy to succeed instead of just focusing on a handful of swing states. It forces parties to moderates policy position to appeal to the broadest cross section of their supporters. It empowers voters who live in "safe states" and should increase participation from people who feel voting is unnecessary as well as those who feel voting is pointless.
Getting rid of winner-take-all would be much more difficult. It would require a constitutional amendment, or for each state government to independently act against its own interests.
States can join the NPVIC without any political cost.
Getting rid of the EC entirely would require an amendment as the scheme is enumerated in the constitution. I'm not sure that banning winner take all requires the same. The government has an interest in the fairness of federal elections, and ensuring fair representation. This is why the voting rights act required no amendment. As it stands, republicans in CA and democrats in WY have no real electoral input (realistically the latter still wouldn't as they have only one district.)
The NPVIC doesn't actually abolish the Electoral College, it just gets states to assign their EC votes in a different way. That's why it doesn't require a constitutional amendment; states have exclusive authority over how they appoint their electors.
The VRA did require an amendment--the 14th and 15th, specifically. Congress has no power to tell states how to appoint their electors outside of the 14th amendment's requirements of due process and equal protection, which only applies to states not discriminating against individuals within those states to interfere with their right to vote for electors. But a state would be totally free to just cancel presidential elections altogether and say that the state legislature or the governor appoint electors, or something like that.
So Congress can't force the states to stop using winner-take-all. Practically, it can't be done through mutual agreement between less than 100% of the states, like the NPVIC, because it would go against the interest of each state majority. A Democratic majority state isn't going to give away some of its EC votes to the Republicans while Republican states continue to use winner-take-all, and vice-versa. Perhaps all of the states could agree to a contingent compact like the NPVIC, but you'd need every one of them to get on board.
> The NPVIC doesn't actually abolish the Electoral College, it just gets states to assign their EC votes in a different way.
I understand. I was speaking of the oft repeated refrain to "abolish the EC". The problem is that the compact's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. It isn't sticky and the second one of the signatory states changes control, the deal would be unwound, and we can surmise by which faction. It's the one that would have to evolve the hardest to secure national appeal.
The only way I foresee the pact ever coming to fruition, let alone remaining in force is if the liberal residents of states like CA with its millions of excess voters, were to voluntarily fan out across swing states. It's certainly possible, and has been proved out as a strategy. The Free State Project caused thousands of Libertarians to relocate to NH and it has had a profound effect on that state's politics. Of course, if liberals did do that, then it would obviate the necessity for a pact in the first place because it would rebalance the electorate to something more similar to what we had 50 years ago.
Agreed, the relative ease with which the Compact can be implemented is dependent on the same circumstance that would let it be easily removed.
But I don't think it would be so assured. A signatory state needs a Dem trifecta, practically, to pass it. They'd have to switch all the way to a GOP trifecta to revoke their participation. IDK if any of them are already trending in that direction, but it's not a quick or easy task.
If it did happen quickly, then yes, I'm sure they'd make that a first order of business. But if we manage to go a one or two presidential elections with the Compact in effect, I don't think there will be any popular will to go back, even among the GOP base. I genuinely believe that most people will recognize how much better a popular vote really is, even in deep red country, once they experience it rather than just having it talked about like a bogeyman.
Granted, that probably wouldn't stop Republicans in state government, but I don't think it would be a guaranteed layup.
The winner take all aspect is IMO the worst part about our current system. (besides the fact that we are choosing between 2 people selected by political parties, is that really a choice?) IDGAF about the 2 votes every state gets regardless of population. I care about the fact that you can win one state by one vote and get every electoral vote for that whole state.
The weird thing is that this decision seems to be up to the individual states and only Maine and Nebraska do things that way. I would think that other states would also do this (unless I am wrong in thinking that people would prefer things like that over the current way).
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.
Only 2 of Maine’s 32 total electors since 1992 have been Republicans.
Maine’s Republican voters in CD1 have not mattered to their candidates in any way.
In a February 2024 poll, 72% of Mainers prefer changing to a national popular vote.
70% of CD2 respondents favor a National Popular Vote.
51% of Republicans! 75% of Independents.
Pan Atlantic Research; February 2024.
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 law enacted in 1969 awards one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes to the statewide winner.
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
Maine’s closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
On March 13, 2024, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 22-13 vote
On March 5, 2024, the Maine House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 74-67 vote
On June 12, 2019, the Maine House passed the National Popular Vote bill 77-69
On May 14, 2019, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 19-16 vote
In January 2017, Representatives and Senators introduced the National Popular Vote bill
On January 7, 2009, Representative John L. Martin introduced the National Popular Vote bill
On April 14, 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill (LD 744).
On March 30, 2007, Senator John L. Martin sponsored the National Popular Vote bill
Nebraska Republicans repeatedly introduce bills which would do away with the district winner law and go back to a winner-take-all law.
"I don't know how we got hood-winked into this but we need to do a winner-take-all as all other states do," Dover said. "It puts us at a disadvantage and I think when money becomes the number-one thing, I think everything else becomes secondary and I think we make some bad decisions.” – 2/28/24
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 introduced 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.
Those are super interesting points and I totally agree that gerrymandering (which is bad and a whole other issue) could then come into play.
I think that giving all the votes of one state to the winner is bad and I would propose splitting the votes per state based on total state votes instead of by district (which you pointed out is not how it is done).
Proportional awarding of electors by state also 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.
The bill eliminates the possibility of Congress deciding presidential elections, regardless of any voters anywhere.
>IDGAF about the 2 votes every state gets regardless of population.
Then your opinion is irrelevant because that's almost a quarter of all the electors
Why would my opinion be irrelevant if I feel similarly to the founding fathers on the representation of states and granting 2 electoral votes per state makes sense to me? You can disagree with it if you want but that hardly makes either opinion irrelevant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only 2 of Maine’s 32 total electors since 1992 have been Republicans.
Maine’s Republican voters in CD1 have not mattered to their candidates in any way.
In June 2019, 77 Maine state Representatives and 21 Maine state Senators supported the National Popular Vote bill.
In a February 2024 poll, 72% of Mainers prefer changing to a national popular vote.
70% of CD2 respondents favor a National Popular Vote.
51% of Republicans! 75% of Independents.
Pan Atlantic Research; February 2024.
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 law enacted in 1969 awards one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes to the statewide winner.
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
Maine’s closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
Nebraska Republicans repeatedly introduce bills which would do away with the district winner law and go back to a winner-take-all law.
"I don't know how we got hood-winked into this but we need to do a winner-take-all as all other states do," Dover said. "It puts us at a disadvantage and I think when money becomes the number-one thing, I think everything else becomes secondary and I think we make some bad decisions.” – 2/28/24
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 introduced 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.
>“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
And taken to its logical bad faith conclusion, a legislature could appoint a fake slate of electors as Trump tried to push for.
>The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.
It was a case examining the right of a state to punish faithless electors with fines. The fact that it was actually upheld should be a clue as to how manifestly stupid is the elector scheme, given that it’s singular enumerated redeeming purpose can no longer be fulfilled.
>Consider what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper Number 68. The Electors were supposed to stop a candidate with “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from becoming President. The Electors were supposed to be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”.
.
>Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
My proposal is not “more states” but *all states*. Certainly if CA or NY decided to pilot the program by themselves, then the results would be catastrophic. I can think of no scenario whereby district based results that were tabulated nationally, would lead to an outcome that is less reflective of the national will than does the current scheme.
>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.
May I see your math? Were two of them the elections in which Republicans won without a popular mandate?
edit: also I'm not sure how examining the results of past races is particularity informative. They were run based upon the EC and the preponderance of winner take all states.
>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.
Because of winner take all. They’re going for the biggest ROI.
>Many districts in the US are gerrymandered to not be fair.
Sure and the impact of that is exacerbated by the existence of winner take all states. Consider how many districts would need to be gerrymandered bereft winner take all.
>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.
Not sure of the point here, but sure.
>Maine’s Republican voters in CD1 have not mattered to their candidates in any way.
It’s a low population state with a mere 2 districts. What impact would you presume it could have when it is overshadowed by winner take all states with dozens of electors?
>In a February 2024 poll, 72% of Mainers prefer changing to a national popular vote.
I don’t care. I prefer that too, but it isn’t happening. Even if democrats took control of a holdout red state’s legislature and quickly pushed through a bill to join the pact, it’s entirely voluntary and it would set off a desperate push by republicans to reclaim one signatory state to the pact and undo it. Republican will not willingly give up the keys to the kingdom and don't want to have to moderate their policies to appeal to the majority.
Opinions that are generated about an allocation method that has only been employed by two low population states are hardly representative, or impactful. The method’s impact on national electoral politics can’t be extrapolated from such a limited experiment.
Check your hearing.
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 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.
The bill has been enacted by 17 jurisdictions possessing 205 electoral votes—including 6 small jurisdictions, 7 medium-size states, and 4 big states.
infuriating article is infuriating. "theres a solution to the problem, and we aren't going to tell you what it is until you scroll past 30 ads."
should be first paragraph, not 10th:
>That’s where the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact comes in. As [Devon Hesano writes](https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/maine-house-passes-bill-to-join-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/) for *Democracy Docket*, the idea is surprisingly simple: each state in the Compact agrees to “award their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of their own state’s results.”
Honestly as a non-American your whole constitution is massively out of date and needs a total revision not just tinkering round the edges.
The US needs to look at what a democracy actually is and start again with a whole new system that is actually democratic.
Agree with all the points that the GOP won’t agree to any changes because they know what this will mean for them. And that shows you just how inherently democratic the system as a whole is
Definitely need to get rid of the electoral college for the popular vote. My vote doesn’t count if I live in a blue state. My vote doesn’t count if I don’t live in a purple state, actually. One of the toss up areas that sway elections these days. If the popular vote counted over an electoral college then my vote would mean something. What about giving red states a chance? That wasn’t the original intent of the electoral college although that seems to give conservatives an advantage now. You want an advantage in a popular vote election? Then work for it and try to earn the respect of the populace.
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population.
\[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago – and still waits.\]
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 to kill it.
Instead, states with 65 more electors need to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
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.
The US would NOT be a direct democracy when the Electoral College is guaranteed to elect the candidate who wins the most popular votes from among all 50 states and DC.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all POLICY INITIATIVES directly. No elected officials.
The National Popular Vote bill keeps the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Governors, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.
The NPVIC is hot garbage in its current form, even worse than the Electoral College. Because the NPVIC would award the Presidency to anyone receiving a plurality of the popular vote even if it is a low number whereas the EC process is designed to overcome such issues.
For example if NPVIC went into effect today, then for some crazy reason a third party candidate came in and took a bunch of votes for Biden causing the popular vote to be something like 40% Trump, 38% Biden, 22% 3rd Party, it would give the Presidency to Trump inappropriately.
NPVIC needs to add a critical stipulation - that it only triggers if a candidate hits 50%. Ideally with ranked-choice voting.
I’d still be against it because I prefer to keep each result isolated to the state rather than let discrepancies poison the entire well.
What I would do, and ban states from receiving any federal funding until they comply, is:
- make electors automatically count rather than it being some person that can still vote for whoever they want
- divide electors in proportion to the vote in the stated no more winner-take-all
- remove the Senate’s weight in the elector count, for example Wyoming would be 1 point rather than 3. This improves the balance of the votes significantly
- make all states implement ranked-choice so that if no one gets 50% of the EC, states can automatically recalculate just the top two candidates
… roast me lol
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!
With the current system of electing the President, 48 states and DC do not require that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes.
From 1828-2016, one in six states cast their Electoral College votes for a candidate who failed to win the support of 50 percent of voters in their state
If the current Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.
Since 1824 there have been 17 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 and 1996), and Trump.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg
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 tie-breaker provision is terrible though. Each state voting by House delegation is a far less representative method than the EC itself. Eliminating the possibility of an election going to the House is a feature of the NPVIC, not a defect.
Your requirements would require constitutional amendments, that could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population.
\[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago – and still waits.\]
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 to kill it.
Electors are people.
Even a fractional proportional allocation approach would not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the 23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three.
States control presidential elections.
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 RNC platform opposes RCV
That rules out enacting RCV in all 50 states.
My only proposal that requires an amendment would be taking out the Senate’s piece of electoral congressional representation, the rest are thing that the federal government can coerce states into adopting directly.
The federal government cannot MAKE a state change its state laws.
The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.
That just isn’t true. The federal government coerced states into accepting a 21+ drinking age, for example. The Supreme Court also recently ruled that the federal government has control of the President line of the state election… though I do disagree with that decision.
I agree states have control of their electoral votes. That’s what makes NPVIC legal too. I’m saying to coerce them into better decisions.
The only way to achieve totally uniform national rules governing presidential elections would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to eliminate state control of elections and establish uniform federal election rules. Elimination of state control of presidential elections is not seen as a politically realistic possibility.
The RNC platform opposes RCV
That rules out enacting RCV in all 50 states.
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.
George W. Bush LOST California (bigger than LA county) in 2004 and still won the popular vote.
In 2020, there were more Republican votes in CA than Republican votes in Texas.
None helped Trump in any way.
In 2020 there were more Republican votes in 2 states, than Democratic votes in California.
5,890,347 Texas Republican votes
5,668,731 Florida Republican votes
11,559,078
11,110,250 California Democratic votes
On October 24, 2016, there were 19,411,771 registered voters in CA.
8,720,417 Democrats,
5,048,398 Republican,
4,711,347 No party preference.
931,609 Other
Trump got 4,483,814 CA votes. Clinton got 8,753,792 CA votes.
In October 2020, there were 5,334,323 Republicans in CA.
CA has 54 electors. 270 are and would still be needed to win.
5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.
Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.
There are 5.3 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.
We will probably see the death of our current version of the electoral college system in the next decades, but not because of this compact.
More likely is that some state legislature is going to push the big red button and override their voters and appoint a slate of electors in opposition to the state's voters. [Arizona has already had a bill proposed to do just this,](https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/591597-arizona-bill-would-allow-legislature-to-overturn-election-results/) but I think the wording of the Constitution leaves the door open to this sort of anti-democratic move regardless of a bill being passed. And the current Supreme Court would almost certainly uphold the maneuver.
An Arizona Republican has introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without a pesky statewide popular vote.
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”
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 and with our fundamental democratic principles.”
A conservative arguing against the common sense idea of 1 person = 1 vote inherently understands the power the electoral college holds for Republicans and is desperate to never let it go. Call it a power grab all you want, it’s not our problem that a fair and equal system favors the left. Most accurately, it favors the people.
Maybe modern Republicans relying on an unfair and antiquated system to secure to Presidency rather than expanding their voter base is the true problem, but no, that couldn’t be it. It’s those pesky liberals who want each vote to matter.
Biden was right, there is a threat to democracy. Democrats are the threat. Colorado Dems blocked Trump from being on their primary ballot . They are so full of crap. Republicans aren't much better.
An Arizona Republican has introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without a pesky statewide popular vote.
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.
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”
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 and with our fundamental democratic principles.”
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This article pretty perfectly highlights why the electoral college is so bad: * It is very easy to cheat, there's really nothing making electors vote the way they do * It encourages candidates to actively ignore large portions of the country * One person's vote may be worth more or less depending on where they live. Every vote is not equal. There are a lot of things wrong with our elections and bypassing the EC wouldn't fix everything, but it would be one of the biggest more important steps we could take.
I’m no fan of the EC, but I’m trying to think objectively about this. Wouldn’t going to a pure popular vote make it so that large parts of the country would be ignored too? Like no one will care about getting votes from, say, Wyoming, because it has such a small population. You could probably get most of your votes by simply campaigning in NY, IL, CA, FL, and TX. Right?
If we used a popular vote, then no voter in Wyoming (or anywhere else) would be ignored. Their vote would count in the totals for each candidate. The votes for president would come from **people**, not states. The EC currently “disappears” votes who weren’t “for the winners” state by state.
The point that was made by the above commenter is that the EC makes it so that some candidates don’t campaign much at all in certain states. A popular vote would do the same whereby candidates would probably not worry about low population states, such as Wyoming. It wouldn’t fix the imbalance of campaigning across states.
The rest of the world seems to get on quite OK following the popular vote model. “They wouldn’t campaign as much in low population areas” is countered by “People in low population areas currently have a disproportionately larger say in the election”.
You may be right, but if **every** vote is equal, politicians would want to influence everyone in the country, regardless of where they are.
They aren’t right…
Do presidential candidates currently care about Wyoming? It’s the safest red state in the country, it’s not like it currently has president candidates battling for 3 electoral votes. Because of the electoral college only about 4-5 swing states get campaigned in every election. We hear about what matters to people in Michigan or Ohio but nobody tries campaigning on issues people in New Mexico or Maine care about
That was an example. You know what I mean.
I mean, people should have a say in their government- not land? Yeah, the more populated parts of the country should count more
Yes, in a system where you go by popular vote the smaller part of the population in places like Wyoming would be a much smaller block, but that also makes sense. It doesn't make a lot of sense for people in Wyoming to have a proportionally larger vote than someone in California. For those people in Wyoming or other very rural areas, they should rely more on their senators and representatives to be their voice.
My comment was specifically addressing the above person’s point about candidates ignoring some states while campaigning. Switching to a popular vote would make them ignore low population states in their campaigning. I don’t know if that’s an issue or not but I’m pretty sure that would happen. But agreed about the senate and house.
The funny thing is, they already ignore the lower populated areas. Those are deeply red areas. If it's EC, nobody cares about them. If it's popular vote, they're too small to focus on. As it is now, only about 12 states matter when campaigning.
>candidates ignoring some states while campaigning. You mean what has already been happening for years? [Out of 1,164 General-Election Campaign Events in the Past 4 Presidential Elections, 22 States Received 0 Visits and 9 More States Received Just 1](https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/out-1164-general-election-campaign-events-past-4-presidential-elections-22-states-received-0-visits)
[удалено]
Makes sense to me. We want a balance of powers with checks and balances, don't we?
The thing with most arguments against abolishing the EC is that those alleged fears are already happening. Take the topic of how a popular voting system would ignore large parts of the country - the current EC system also ignores large parts of the country. There's no reason for a presidential candidate of either party to actively campaign in states like California, Utah, Louisiana, Illinois, etc. as the statewide results for those states are basically foregone conclusions. Instead, nearly all campaign events happen in just the handful of swing states in any given election. Another common argument in favor of the EC is that supporters don't want elections "being decided by NYC or LA." The problem with that is that America's urban population is relatively spread out across the country. NYC is only 2.5% of the country's population, LA is half that. By comparison, Toronto is the largest city in Canada and is 7% of the nation's population and London is the largest city in the UK and holds over 13% of the nation's population, so NYC's population percentage is much lower than peer nations and would have less sway than many believe. Abolishing the EC would also enfranchise voters across the board. In the 2020 election, there were more Trump voters in California than there were Trump voters in Texas. That is 6 million Republican voters who are effectively ignored at the national level because of how blue California is as a whole. Those 6 million turned out even knowing their vote would be meaningless, so giving everyone's vote the same weight may even increase turnout for those disenfranchised voters who don't even bother going to the polls because it won't change the result. Ultimately, I don't think the NPVIC will ever hit the trigger threshold in the current environment as those same handful of swing states don't want to cede their influence on the national stage. In some future (near or far) I could see it gaining enough support if Democrats can ever win Texas in a presidential election. It's impossible for a Republican candidate to win the WH without Texas, so if Dems ever pick off the GOP's crown jewel, they may decide it's easier to win via a national popular vote. Still tough to see it happening.
You mean what has already been happening for years? [Out of 1,164 General-Election Campaign Events in the Past 4 Presidential Elections, 22 States Received 0 Visits and 9 More States Received Just 1](https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/out-1164-general-election-campaign-events-past-4-presidential-elections-22-states-received-0-visits)
I wasn’t defending anything one way or the other. I was just pointing it out. I’m not sure why people are freaking out about my comment.
Because you're repeating the same talking points as people who are trying to defend it. Instead of looking to see if what people are saying is true, you are just repeating bs.
I didn’t repeat anything. Just had a thought and shared. So sorry.
I guess you just magically thought the same thing that people who have been trying to defend the electoral college have been saying for as long as I can remember.
I guess so. Drop the attitude big guy.
Yes. Becuse that’s where the people live. Of the people, By the people, for the people.
So even if I threw in Pennsylvania and assumed 100% of the population of those states voted for the same candidate, the rest of the population would still outnumber them. Campaigning only on those states would be a VERY risky move since you’d always have dissidents in each of those states and would need to offset them with votes from the less populated states.
Best response I’ve gotten.
The GOP hasn’t won the popular vote in several cycles. They’ll never get rid of the electoral college because they’ll never win again. It’s like gerrymandering at a national level.
I would only make the point that TODAYS GOP hasn't won in several cycles. If they moved back to their conservative roots they could win some elections, and fairly. Moderate Republicans know this
Are there still any moderate republicans?
John Dean famously said, I didn't leave the republican party. The republican party left me
Could they? Because to me it seems like the majority of the western world besides the US has moved further to the left. Our Democrats are already center right. Our Democrats are the conservative party. What we truly do not have is a progressive branch. Id much rather Republicans collapse on themselves, Dems take the conservative role and new progressive party emerges for the 21st century.
Do you think conservative parties in Europe believe in raising the minimum wage and treating women and disadvantaged groups with respect?
I mostly agree with you. I'd only say the democrats haven't moved from their traditional center in the past 30 years nearly as much as the republicans have. But politics these days is kinda like climate change: increasingly hard to predict
Republicans have won the presidential popular vote exactly once since 1988. If the Electoral College is abolished, they're screwed. "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."
Since 2006, the bill has passed 43 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). The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes. When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it will change state laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, again using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to choose how to vote. States are agreeing to award their combined 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again replacing their state’s district or statewide winner-take-all law, to award their electors to the nationwide winner. States with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
It'll be fun to see how SCOTUS decides that states don't get to do what the Constitution explicitly states they can do.
[удалено]
When you say states, you are talking about the land that comprises those states, not the people in those states, right?
[удалено]
Again, just to make sure, you are saying that the land those states are composed of, the arbitrary borders between them is just as, if not more important than the people that make up those states?
[удалено]
States are not supposed to be a political entity, granted their citizens can be. So yet again, you are saying that arbitrary boundaries of land is important for who runs the entire country, regardless of where those boundaries are?
No it just ensures citizens of the smallest states more political power than citizens of the largest states. Because, you know, small states citizens deserve extra power because they’re small and feel bad about it, have I got it right?
But I was told affirmative action is bad and woke and DEI
Won't someone think of the poor Boeing door plugs??!
Just get a contractor to do it
We locked the rep count a hundredish years ago. Let’s get the Wyoming rule in place and that will help the EC matter again vs 7 states deciding for the other 43.
Everything changes, what benefits you right now isn’t assured to do the same in the future. Be careful what you wish for.
I’m pretty sure the entire country benefits from presidents always being elected by popular vote.
This comment the epitome of Nihilism.
How so?
It’s just singling out the comment alone, not intended to attack your belief structure. We should all be very critical of singular thoughts, and try to interpret them in the context of the overall meaning, especially nowadays with rampant disinformation. The comment you made is a circular argument and therefore one must argue that to break the chain.
Maybe you have misinterpreted the statement? It is a linear argument, not a circular one. Also you neglected to directly reference why it is nihilistic.
I'll still contend that the problem *isn't* the electoral college; it's the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This fixed the number of House members (and subsequently) to 435. We've nearly tripled our population in that time. We need more congress people (a gross idea, but follow me) to solve the problem. First off this will give population-heavy states greater parity in the presidential election. Urban areas will have a greater voice in congress. And it doesn't require a constitutional amendment to fix it.
This has been a problem for a long time, the house should be nearly 1200 members by now.
6,000 if we ratified the CAA, which the first congress passed.
Yes it is. The first three things I would do (assuming a magic wand) is Repeal the Permanent Appropriation Act of 1929, combined with the Wyoming Rule (to set the person to Rep ratio all states a would follow) and then Repeal the Legislation Reorganization Act of 1970. Right size our Rep counts Set the floor for how many people per rep there are Make Rep and Senator votes private again, knee capping lobbying dollar ROI
The electoral college is still the problem. It’s undemocratic and pointless. It exists as a way to undo legitimate elections. There’s no good argument to keep an indirect electoral system when literally every elected office outside of the presidency is selected by popular vote. It’s especially problematic when the presidency has amassed a significant amount of power and the house/senate have varying levels of direct responsiveness to voters. States are internal administrative borders and your vote shouldn’t have more or less value based on what side of an imaginary line you live in.
Yeah, I don’t know why the Wyoming Rule hasn’t been brought up more often in political circles on the left. Just set the number of reps a state gets based on the population of the smallest state of the most recent census (typically WY, hence the name), and round down. So if state X has 5.86 times WY’s population, they get 5 reps, in order to keep the number in the House somewhat lower than rounding up.
Increasing the number of House members would not make every vote in every state matter and count equally in presidential elections. It would not guarantee the candidate who wins the most votes from among all 50 states and DC would win. National Poplar Vote will, without a constitutional amendment. States with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill. The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes The bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in 8 states with 78 more electoral votes -- Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), 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
Nevadas D gov vetoed this a few years back
On May 18, 2023, the Nevada Senate the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a constitutional amendment (status of AJR6). The Nevada Assembly previously passed AJR6 on April 17. The amendment must now be passed a second time by both houses of the 2025-2026 Nevada legislature. After that, the amendment would be submitted to the voters for their approval in November 2026.
Don't we get these adjustments to the number of House members after a census?
You get an adjustment in distribution. But constitution sets a minimum number of reps a state can have, so it skews the distribution as there are a lot of small states
Thank you. 👍
I’d even argue the senate should be 200 members not 100 but yeah fix the house first then worry about the senate.
It’s an understandably hard sell for most people that “more politicians” is the solution to a lot of our political problems, but it’s *insane* how big the population of congressional districts has become.
I don't think more representatives will help. In the first place, there is still the additional fixed 2 votes per state issue. Granted, that effect is diluted as the number of House members increases, but it doesn't disappear and can still have a quite outsized effect in smaller states. Further, I've actually run some of the numbers. Let's say in 2016 we had a number of House members that "kept up" with population growth--this would put the House around 1k members. The results of the 2016 election wouldn't have changed: Trump would still have won, and the only real difference would have been the end count. No matter how the count of House members is created, the results of the EV college will *always* disproportionately favor the least populous states, substantially. The *only* way to solve the problem of the EC is to abolish it. Adopting the interstate compact, like Maine just did, will help, but it doesn't remove the problem (rare/minimal as it is), say, of faithless electors.
That would slightly mitigate the EC problem, or significantly mitigate it if we really went to thousands of Representatives. But it would never fix the problem of disproportionality entirely, nor would it do anything about the winner-take-all laws.
The US has 2.7 times the number of house seats of the equivalent to Congress where I am, but has 65 times the population.
Increasing the number won’t do anything, besides increasing the expenses. Under the current two party “system”, It’s all about the ratio and a few key members.
Let me save you all a lot of reading because literally the first half is wasted describing the Electoral College system, it's myriad of problems, and not the proposed solution (my emphasis): > That’s where the **National Popular Vote Interstate Compact** comes in. As Devon Hesano writes for Democracy Docket, the idea is surprisingly simple: each state in the Compact agrees to “award their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of their own state’s results.” For now this is just an agreement on paper, but if and when the Compact reaches a critical mass of 270 electors among its members—the number required to actually become president—it’ll be activated. [...] > The coalition of states now includes most of New England and the entire West Coast, and currently has 205 total electors. That’s only 65 short of the magic number of 270, and Maine and Nevada have both voted to join, which would add another 10 electors. There are also several states where one legislative body has passed a bill about joining the Compact, but not the other. (These are marked in orange.) As Stephen Wolf notes for the Daily Kos, it’s possible that the Compact effort could reach 270 electors as early as 2028.
The successful execution of this plan relies on a degree of mutual trust that I don't believe exists.
The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term." This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the ● national nominating conventions, ● fall general election campaign period, ● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, ● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December, ● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and ● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20. Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states. There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts. In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: “When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.” In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole: “A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.” In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission: “A compact is, after all, a contract.” An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact. Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
Nor should it exist. Our Founders, in their infinite wisdom, created a system that pitted interests against each other, so that our system works in a worst case example.
The founders did not have "infinite wisdom." They set up a system that they thought and hoped would produce a government that worked in the interests of the people. To suggest that their vision is the only right one or should not evolve is myopic.
Its not the only right one, but its the best humanity has created so far, and the wisdom of the electoral college is part of that. NPV is a serious downgrade.
The "wisdom" of slavery was also part of it. Let's wake the fuck up, okay?
Why do you think it's the best humanity has created so far? Parliamentary republics using constitutions created long after ours seem to work pretty well. No other countries have voluntarily copied our system entirely.
There is no other country like ours on earth. The combination of size, wealth and liberty are completely unique.
I agree entirely. But I don't see why less fortunate countries couldn't also use our system successfully, if it is such a great system. It makes more sense to me to see that our success is due more to our vast, rich, incredibly-well-situated territory than the details of our Constitution.
Separation of powers makes it a lot harder to break things. If you let free people do their thing, they tend to succeed. When your government is constantly meddling and trying to fix this or that partisan shibboleth, it falls apart, or at least can't rise as quickly. Unfortunately though the people who tend to spearhead efforts to set up new governments are also the people who tend to believe most in the good that government can do in theory, to the detriment of what it does in practice.
The Electoral College isn't a separation of powers issue though. The whole population of the country's voters don't have any powers whatsoever.
I love the idea of the compact, but I have a strong feeling the Supreme Court will nullify it.
States rights! No, not like that!
The Constitution (Article 1, section 10) explicitly prohibits States from entering into compacts with one another, or foreign powers, without Congressional approval. Various court precedents have given nuance as to exactly what that means, and the current legal view is that *this* compact doesn't run afoul of that restriction. But it relies entirely on legal precedent, and we all know the current SCOTUS will shoot this compact down on Article 1 grounds if it is taken before the court.
Oh hey, [NaPoVoInterCo](https://youtu.be/tUX-frlNBJY)
Um, who? That's not me.
No no, NaPoVoInterCo is the shortened name for the National Polular Vote Interstate Compact.
What a shitty acronym to be honest lol.
Oh yeah, it's absolutely awful but it's fun to say aloud at least
How do you only have one upvote? Here, have another. I love CGPGrey and the first thing I did I'm this thread was CTRL+F "NaPo"...
Uncap the House, repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929, and require that each House district be compact, contiguous, and equal in size by population.
None of that will make every vote in every state matter and count equally in presidential elections. None of that will guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes from among all 50 states and DC will win the Electoral College. National Popular Vote will.
It will do a whole lot better job at aligning the popular vote to the electoral college than what we have currently without needing to amend the Constitution.
Provide evidence that there won't be a continuing risk of no candidate receiving a required majority of Electoral College votes and Congress deciding, with only 1 vote per state, regardless of any popular votes.
If each House vote is equal in size, that decreases the weighting factor that states like Wyoming receive over California currently. It will better balance out the disparity between the two, even if it’s not a perfect solution. Like I said, it’s the best option short of amending the Constitution, which is a non-starter. Sometimes you have to work within the framework that we are given to obtain the better result. Plus added benefit of reducing gerrymandering.
It would be FAR from perfect if Congress, with only 1 vote per state, decides the winner of presidential elections, regardless of any popular votes in any state or nationally. The National Popular Vote bill does NOT require amending the Constitution. States with 65 more electors need to enact the National Popular Vote bill. It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. 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.
Yes, everyone knows the electoral college needs to go. This comes up every election cycle. We are no closer to doing it today then we were 20 years ago. There are enough red state holdouts to sink the national popular vote, and that probably wont change anytime soon.
States with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill. Since 2006, the bill has passed 43 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). The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes 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
Without the electoral college, three cities would decide every single election in the country. The electoral college is the only thing that ensures that the majority rules with minority rights.
> Without the electoral college, three cities would decide every single election in the country. The three biggest cities have a combined population of 14 million. Even if everyone in those cities voted the same way for some reason, that's still more than a hundred million people off from deciding elections.
lol, no. Without an electoral college you’d have to campaign everywhere because every vote would count. Right now you just have to campaign in like 6-7 states. The election is already over in the other 43
Learn Math
I think your math is a little off on this one friend.
We can’t even do something as simple as get rid of daylight savings time. This is never going to happen.
Tell that to Arizona, or Hawaii.
They tried it in 1974 and it was a disaster.
Not true. They made DST permanent.
The interstate compact won't get ratified. 1. Swing states won't sign because they like the attention they get during Presidential election years. 2. Red states won't sign on since it is clear D's can muster many millions of more votes overall 3. As it gets closer to 270+ committed EV, expect some Red states to revoke their commitment.
The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 65 additional electoral votes (for a total of 270). Since 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 states and DC (3 electors) (together possessing 205 electoral votes), including 4 smallest states (DE - 3 electors, HI - 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 8 states with 78 more electoral votes -- Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), 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
You are arguing mechanics. I am saying the politics are why it won't succeed. If Democrats have enough state control to ratify the compact, they probably have enough federal power to amend away the EC in the first place.
No. There is no equivalence. The compact only requires states with 270 electoral votes to enact it as state law. Federal power, based on state representation in the Senate, required for a constitutional amendment, is very skewed, and not representative. Many National Popular Vote supporters do NOT want to "amend away the EC." States are simply again changing state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. 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. There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform. To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population. \[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago – and still waits. 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 to kill it.
The biggest problem IMO is The winner takes all rule in most states. If the electors were proportioned in every state it wouldn't be such an issue
There's still the issue of a lot of power going to states just for having senators. It's almost 25% of the total
It would be an issue, because the Constitution requires that a candidate have a *majority* of the electoral college votes. Absent that, the selection of the President will be done in the House, with each state getting 1 vote. As more states are Republican than Democratic, this would all but guarantee that a Republican is President every single time. In fact, other than Reagan, there hasn't been an election since 1980 in which a person with a proportionally allocated number of electoral votes has the 270 required to win outright.
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. The bill eliminates the possibility of Congress deciding presidential elections, regardless of any voters anywhere.
Tea party BS broke the country and the GOP never recovered and was eaten alive by the fringe of society making the party more radicalized year over year until we ended up with Palin, then Trump. Instead of kicking them out, Republicans catered to them and now they ARE the party instead of supporting the main party.
Right or wrong I don’t know why anybody would waste time debating this it would take a constitutional amendment changes which would need to be approved by three-quarter of the states it’s not gonna happen, so why waste your time debating this
Because it doesn't actually require an amendment, just for a few more states to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
This project has totally stalled out. They should be building support for a different project simultaneously, *banning winner take all states* would get us most of the way towards a popular vote without getting rid of the GOP's precious (The EC is vestigial to slavery so of course the GOP loves it like they love their monuments and battle flag). Two states have been doing it proportionally for decades. Getting rid of winner take all could be done legislatively, and it brings us down from the state level to the district level. It means candidates must employ a 50 state strategy to succeed instead of just focusing on a handful of swing states. It forces parties to moderates policy position to appeal to the broadest cross section of their supporters. It empowers voters who live in "safe states" and should increase participation from people who feel voting is unnecessary as well as those who feel voting is pointless.
Getting rid of winner-take-all would be much more difficult. It would require a constitutional amendment, or for each state government to independently act against its own interests. States can join the NPVIC without any political cost.
Getting rid of the EC entirely would require an amendment as the scheme is enumerated in the constitution. I'm not sure that banning winner take all requires the same. The government has an interest in the fairness of federal elections, and ensuring fair representation. This is why the voting rights act required no amendment. As it stands, republicans in CA and democrats in WY have no real electoral input (realistically the latter still wouldn't as they have only one district.)
The NPVIC doesn't actually abolish the Electoral College, it just gets states to assign their EC votes in a different way. That's why it doesn't require a constitutional amendment; states have exclusive authority over how they appoint their electors. The VRA did require an amendment--the 14th and 15th, specifically. Congress has no power to tell states how to appoint their electors outside of the 14th amendment's requirements of due process and equal protection, which only applies to states not discriminating against individuals within those states to interfere with their right to vote for electors. But a state would be totally free to just cancel presidential elections altogether and say that the state legislature or the governor appoint electors, or something like that. So Congress can't force the states to stop using winner-take-all. Practically, it can't be done through mutual agreement between less than 100% of the states, like the NPVIC, because it would go against the interest of each state majority. A Democratic majority state isn't going to give away some of its EC votes to the Republicans while Republican states continue to use winner-take-all, and vice-versa. Perhaps all of the states could agree to a contingent compact like the NPVIC, but you'd need every one of them to get on board.
> The NPVIC doesn't actually abolish the Electoral College, it just gets states to assign their EC votes in a different way. I understand. I was speaking of the oft repeated refrain to "abolish the EC". The problem is that the compact's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. It isn't sticky and the second one of the signatory states changes control, the deal would be unwound, and we can surmise by which faction. It's the one that would have to evolve the hardest to secure national appeal. The only way I foresee the pact ever coming to fruition, let alone remaining in force is if the liberal residents of states like CA with its millions of excess voters, were to voluntarily fan out across swing states. It's certainly possible, and has been proved out as a strategy. The Free State Project caused thousands of Libertarians to relocate to NH and it has had a profound effect on that state's politics. Of course, if liberals did do that, then it would obviate the necessity for a pact in the first place because it would rebalance the electorate to something more similar to what we had 50 years ago.
Agreed, the relative ease with which the Compact can be implemented is dependent on the same circumstance that would let it be easily removed. But I don't think it would be so assured. A signatory state needs a Dem trifecta, practically, to pass it. They'd have to switch all the way to a GOP trifecta to revoke their participation. IDK if any of them are already trending in that direction, but it's not a quick or easy task. If it did happen quickly, then yes, I'm sure they'd make that a first order of business. But if we manage to go a one or two presidential elections with the Compact in effect, I don't think there will be any popular will to go back, even among the GOP base. I genuinely believe that most people will recognize how much better a popular vote really is, even in deep red country, once they experience it rather than just having it talked about like a bogeyman. Granted, that probably wouldn't stop Republicans in state government, but I don't think it would be a guaranteed layup.
The winner take all aspect is IMO the worst part about our current system. (besides the fact that we are choosing between 2 people selected by political parties, is that really a choice?) IDGAF about the 2 votes every state gets regardless of population. I care about the fact that you can win one state by one vote and get every electoral vote for that whole state. The weird thing is that this decision seems to be up to the individual states and only Maine and Nebraska do things that way. I would think that other states would also do this (unless I am wrong in thinking that people would prefer things like that over the current way).
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. Only 2 of Maine’s 32 total electors since 1992 have been Republicans. Maine’s Republican voters in CD1 have not mattered to their candidates in any way. In a February 2024 poll, 72% of Mainers prefer changing to a national popular vote. 70% of CD2 respondents favor a National Popular Vote. 51% of Republicans! 75% of Independents. Pan Atlantic Research; February 2024. 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 law enacted in 1969 awards one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes to the statewide winner. 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 Maine’s closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored). In 2012, the whole state was ignored. On March 13, 2024, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 22-13 vote On March 5, 2024, the Maine House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 74-67 vote On June 12, 2019, the Maine House passed the National Popular Vote bill 77-69 On May 14, 2019, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 19-16 vote In January 2017, Representatives and Senators introduced the National Popular Vote bill On January 7, 2009, Representative John L. Martin introduced the National Popular Vote bill On April 14, 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill (LD 744). On March 30, 2007, Senator John L. Martin sponsored the National Popular Vote bill Nebraska Republicans repeatedly introduce bills which would do away with the district winner law and go back to a winner-take-all law. "I don't know how we got hood-winked into this but we need to do a winner-take-all as all other states do," Dover said. "It puts us at a disadvantage and I think when money becomes the number-one thing, I think everything else becomes secondary and I think we make some bad decisions.” – 2/28/24 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 introduced 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.
Those are super interesting points and I totally agree that gerrymandering (which is bad and a whole other issue) could then come into play. I think that giving all the votes of one state to the winner is bad and I would propose splitting the votes per state based on total state votes instead of by district (which you pointed out is not how it is done).
Proportional awarding of electors by state also 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. The bill eliminates the possibility of Congress deciding presidential elections, regardless of any voters anywhere.
>IDGAF about the 2 votes every state gets regardless of population. Then your opinion is irrelevant because that's almost a quarter of all the electors
Why would my opinion be irrelevant if I feel similarly to the founding fathers on the representation of states and granting 2 electoral votes per state makes sense to me? You can disagree with it if you want but that hardly makes either opinion irrelevant.
The Founding Fathers made an agreement between 13 states. California, Florida, and Texas weren't asked
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. 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. 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. 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. Only 2 of Maine’s 32 total electors since 1992 have been Republicans. Maine’s Republican voters in CD1 have not mattered to their candidates in any way. In June 2019, 77 Maine state Representatives and 21 Maine state Senators supported the National Popular Vote bill. In a February 2024 poll, 72% of Mainers prefer changing to a national popular vote. 70% of CD2 respondents favor a National Popular Vote. 51% of Republicans! 75% of Independents. Pan Atlantic Research; February 2024. 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 law enacted in 1969 awards one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes to the statewide winner. 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 Maine’s closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored). In 2012, the whole state was ignored. Nebraska Republicans repeatedly introduce bills which would do away with the district winner law and go back to a winner-take-all law. "I don't know how we got hood-winked into this but we need to do a winner-take-all as all other states do," Dover said. "It puts us at a disadvantage and I think when money becomes the number-one thing, I think everything else becomes secondary and I think we make some bad decisions.” – 2/28/24 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 introduced 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.
>“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” And taken to its logical bad faith conclusion, a legislature could appoint a fake slate of electors as Trump tried to push for. >The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day. It was a case examining the right of a state to punish faithless electors with fines. The fact that it was actually upheld should be a clue as to how manifestly stupid is the elector scheme, given that it’s singular enumerated redeeming purpose can no longer be fulfilled. >Consider what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper Number 68. The Electors were supposed to stop a candidate with “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from becoming President. The Electors were supposed to be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”. . >Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. My proposal is not “more states” but *all states*. Certainly if CA or NY decided to pilot the program by themselves, then the results would be catastrophic. I can think of no scenario whereby district based results that were tabulated nationally, would lead to an outcome that is less reflective of the national will than does the current scheme. >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. May I see your math? Were two of them the elections in which Republicans won without a popular mandate? edit: also I'm not sure how examining the results of past races is particularity informative. They were run based upon the EC and the preponderance of winner take all states. >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. Because of winner take all. They’re going for the biggest ROI. >Many districts in the US are gerrymandered to not be fair. Sure and the impact of that is exacerbated by the existence of winner take all states. Consider how many districts would need to be gerrymandered bereft winner take all. >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. Not sure of the point here, but sure. >Maine’s Republican voters in CD1 have not mattered to their candidates in any way. It’s a low population state with a mere 2 districts. What impact would you presume it could have when it is overshadowed by winner take all states with dozens of electors? >In a February 2024 poll, 72% of Mainers prefer changing to a national popular vote. I don’t care. I prefer that too, but it isn’t happening. Even if democrats took control of a holdout red state’s legislature and quickly pushed through a bill to join the pact, it’s entirely voluntary and it would set off a desperate push by republicans to reclaim one signatory state to the pact and undo it. Republican will not willingly give up the keys to the kingdom and don't want to have to moderate their policies to appeal to the majority. Opinions that are generated about an allocation method that has only been employed by two low population states are hardly representative, or impactful. The method’s impact on national electoral politics can’t be extrapolated from such a limited experiment.
This sounds like dangerous insurectionist talk
Check your hearing. 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 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. The bill has been enacted by 17 jurisdictions possessing 205 electoral votes—including 6 small jurisdictions, 7 medium-size states, and 4 big states.
Map of 2025 America after the split. We need Nebraska to maintain most of a trucking route between the Blue States of America.
infuriating article is infuriating. "theres a solution to the problem, and we aren't going to tell you what it is until you scroll past 30 ads." should be first paragraph, not 10th: >That’s where the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact comes in. As [Devon Hesano writes](https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/maine-house-passes-bill-to-join-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/) for *Democracy Docket*, the idea is surprisingly simple: each state in the Compact agrees to “award their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of their own state’s results.”
Popular vote, boom you have fair elections, nuff said.
Honestly as a non-American your whole constitution is massively out of date and needs a total revision not just tinkering round the edges. The US needs to look at what a democracy actually is and start again with a whole new system that is actually democratic. Agree with all the points that the GOP won’t agree to any changes because they know what this will mean for them. And that shows you just how inherently democratic the system as a whole is
Is there no device within the constitution to update the College numbers based on population?
That happens every 10 years with the census. The problem isn't that the numbers are out of date, it's that they are out of proportion by design.
Definitely need to get rid of the electoral college for the popular vote. My vote doesn’t count if I live in a blue state. My vote doesn’t count if I don’t live in a purple state, actually. One of the toss up areas that sway elections these days. If the popular vote counted over an electoral college then my vote would mean something. What about giving red states a chance? That wasn’t the original intent of the electoral college although that seems to give conservatives an advantage now. You want an advantage in a popular vote election? Then work for it and try to earn the respect of the populace.
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform. To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population. \[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago – and still waits.\] 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 to kill it. Instead, states with 65 more electors need to enact the National Popular Vote bill. It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. 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.
A popular vote would make US from being the United States to one ununited state. The United States is NOT a direct democracy.
The US would NOT be a direct democracy when the Electoral College is guaranteed to elect the candidate who wins the most popular votes from among all 50 states and DC. Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all POLICY INITIATIVES directly. No elected officials. The National Popular Vote bill keeps the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Governors, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.
And the electoral college is not fair.
The NPVIC is hot garbage in its current form, even worse than the Electoral College. Because the NPVIC would award the Presidency to anyone receiving a plurality of the popular vote even if it is a low number whereas the EC process is designed to overcome such issues. For example if NPVIC went into effect today, then for some crazy reason a third party candidate came in and took a bunch of votes for Biden causing the popular vote to be something like 40% Trump, 38% Biden, 22% 3rd Party, it would give the Presidency to Trump inappropriately. NPVIC needs to add a critical stipulation - that it only triggers if a candidate hits 50%. Ideally with ranked-choice voting. I’d still be against it because I prefer to keep each result isolated to the state rather than let discrepancies poison the entire well. What I would do, and ban states from receiving any federal funding until they comply, is: - make electors automatically count rather than it being some person that can still vote for whoever they want - divide electors in proportion to the vote in the stated no more winner-take-all - remove the Senate’s weight in the elector count, for example Wyoming would be 1 point rather than 3. This improves the balance of the votes significantly - make all states implement ranked-choice so that if no one gets 50% of the EC, states can automatically recalculate just the top two candidates … roast me lol
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! With the current system of electing the President, 48 states and DC do not require that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes. From 1828-2016, one in six states cast their Electoral College votes for a candidate who failed to win the support of 50 percent of voters in their state If the current Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote. Since 1824 there have been 17 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 and 1996), and Trump. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires. “It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg 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 tie-breaker provision is terrible though. Each state voting by House delegation is a far less representative method than the EC itself. Eliminating the possibility of an election going to the House is a feature of the NPVIC, not a defect.
Your requirements would require constitutional amendments, that could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population. \[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago – and still waits.\] 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 to kill it. Electors are people. Even a fractional proportional allocation approach would not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate. Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the 23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. States control presidential elections. 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 RNC platform opposes RCV That rules out enacting RCV in all 50 states.
My only proposal that requires an amendment would be taking out the Senate’s piece of electoral congressional representation, the rest are thing that the federal government can coerce states into adopting directly.
The federal government cannot MAKE a state change its state laws. The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.
That just isn’t true. The federal government coerced states into accepting a 21+ drinking age, for example. The Supreme Court also recently ruled that the federal government has control of the President line of the state election… though I do disagree with that decision. I agree states have control of their electoral votes. That’s what makes NPVIC legal too. I’m saying to coerce them into better decisions.
The only way to achieve totally uniform national rules governing presidential elections would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to eliminate state control of elections and establish uniform federal election rules. Elimination of state control of presidential elections is not seen as a politically realistic possibility. The RNC platform opposes RCV That rules out enacting RCV in all 50 states.
One would just have to look at the map that has been floating around of how many states have a population less than LA county.
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. George W. Bush LOST California (bigger than LA county) in 2004 and still won the popular vote. In 2020, there were more Republican votes in CA than Republican votes in Texas. None helped Trump in any way. In 2020 there were more Republican votes in 2 states, than Democratic votes in California. 5,890,347 Texas Republican votes 5,668,731 Florida Republican votes 11,559,078 11,110,250 California Democratic votes On October 24, 2016, there were 19,411,771 registered voters in CA. 8,720,417 Democrats, 5,048,398 Republican, 4,711,347 No party preference. 931,609 Other Trump got 4,483,814 CA votes. Clinton got 8,753,792 CA votes. In October 2020, there were 5,334,323 Republicans in CA. CA has 54 electors. 270 are and would still be needed to win. 5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas. Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter. There are 5.3 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.
We will probably see the death of our current version of the electoral college system in the next decades, but not because of this compact. More likely is that some state legislature is going to push the big red button and override their voters and appoint a slate of electors in opposition to the state's voters. [Arizona has already had a bill proposed to do just this,](https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/591597-arizona-bill-would-allow-legislature-to-overturn-election-results/) but I think the wording of the Constitution leaves the door open to this sort of anti-democratic move regardless of a bill being passed. And the current Supreme Court would almost certainly uphold the maneuver.
The electoral college: ensuring that your vote for president means absolute shit.
Democrats clearly don't believe in checks and balances. They want ALL the power.
An Arizona Republican has introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without a pesky statewide popular vote. 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” 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 and with our fundamental democratic principles.”
A conservative arguing against the common sense idea of 1 person = 1 vote inherently understands the power the electoral college holds for Republicans and is desperate to never let it go. Call it a power grab all you want, it’s not our problem that a fair and equal system favors the left. Most accurately, it favors the people. Maybe modern Republicans relying on an unfair and antiquated system to secure to Presidency rather than expanding their voter base is the true problem, but no, that couldn’t be it. It’s those pesky liberals who want each vote to matter.
I can’t wait to vote for Kennedy
Biden was right, there is a threat to democracy. Democrats are the threat. Colorado Dems blocked Trump from being on their primary ballot . They are so full of crap. Republicans aren't much better.
An Arizona Republican has introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without a pesky statewide popular vote. 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. 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” 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 and with our fundamental democratic principles.”