Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
States have the responsibility and exclusive power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. These flyover states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows.
As of March 10th, some pundits think there will be only Six States That Will Likely Decide The 2012 Election The Six States That Will Likely Decide The 2012 Election
“The presidential campaigns and their allies are zeroing in mainly on nine swing states, bombarding them with commercials in the earliest concentration of advertising in modern politics. “
“no recent general election advertising strategy has covered so little ground so early. In the spring of 2000, George W. Bush and Al Gore fought an air war in close to 20 states. In early 2004, there were the “Swing Seventeen.” And in 2008, the Obama campaign included 18 states in its June advertising offensive, its first of the general election.”
“The fall promises to bring wall-to-wall advertising” in the handful of swing states remaining.
“With so many resources focused on persuading an ever-shrinking pool of swing voters . . the 2012 election is likely to go down in history as the one in which the most money was spent reaching the fewest people.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us...pagewanted=all
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Any candidate who ignored the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.
If big cities could always control the outcome of even state elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."
The Electoral College is the set of electors who are selected to elect the President.
That would continue to exist. No gutting.
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
Cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste....
Votes are just about the end of an election.
An election is about so much more. But you couldn't care less. Disenfranchising people in the name of democracy would obviously alarm anyone who truly supports democracy. But, again, you couldn't care less.
Some states have not been been competitive for than 50 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
It will be much better to ignore non-urban voters and watch their participation permanently decline while their frustration with a government that will increasingly not represent them.
That's how we got to the American Revolution. That's how we got to the American Civil War. Currently, the battleground states shift. You want to implement a system where the disenfranchised are permanent.
States' partisanship is hardening.
Some states have not been been competitive for than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
• 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2008
• 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2008
• 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2008
• 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2008
• 9 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
• 15 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988
Now, 40 States are completely ignored. ZERO discourse in these States, whether it be urban or rural.
Blowing up EC puts ALL 50 States back into play, and greatly INCREASES discourse.
I vote in a non-competitive state and like it that way. My vote doesn't matter so I can put the entire facade of a campaign season, from spring to fall, on ignore. Speeches, debates, gaffes, promises, who's in touch, all the falderal, is back-burner. I can vote for a 3rd party and not worry about actually affecting anything. Put my state into play ? No thanks.
I like the system Nebraska and Maine have. The winner of those states gets electorals,but the loser can also get votes,if they win a congressional district. In 2008,Obama lost Nebraska by a large margin,but still won 1 electoral,by winning the Omaha based district. Meanwhile,the northern district of Maine was competitve,and McCain campaigned there.
A system like that would make every district important. Obama could win districts and electorals in Alabama. Romney in California and New York. As a Californian,I do fell disenfrachised at times. My district is red,but it doesn't matter. Likewise I'm sure for lliberals in Utah or Kentucky.
Try being a liberal in Arkansas. In the traditional Republican stronghold of Arkansas.
It's always frustrating to be voting for the losing side. Which is why it's important to understand that our political process isn't just about votes. It's about each of us being able to participate. We can each of us go to political rallies, and town meetings, and whistle stops, to participate in the conversation. We can each of write to our elected officials, and write to newspapers, and post in political forums on-line, and publish blogs. We are free to participate. But some of that participation depends on opportunity. And in the case of the election of the President, we shouldn't support a strategy that will permanently take part of our voters out of the conversation. We should embrace strategies that make all of us more involved. The electoral college, in a small degree, provides incentive to candidates to visit rural states they might otherwise ignore. Rural states, with small populations, that are already overwhelmingly outnumbered in Congress. The National Popular Vote only reinforces the minority status of rural states, and silences their vote when it comes to the executive branch. A minority in the legislature. Silent in selecting the chief executive. Neglible in terms of the judiciary. It's the recipe for disenfranchisement.
"It will never go into effect, except perhaps in blue States."
That's OK by me. The bill only needs states with 270+ electoral votes.
"Not true. Eligibility to vote is determined by both federal and State law. Each State is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own jurisdiction. States may deny the "right to vote."
In Bush v. Gore in 2000, the Court approvingly referred to the characterization in McPherson v. Blacker of the state’s power under section 1 of article II of the Constitution.
“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33
The National Popular Vote compact establishes the people’s right to vote for President in compacting states. Article II of the compact states.
“Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.”
"Actually, it is Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution that gives the State legislatures plenary and exclusive authority over the manner of awarding their Electorate, but not necessarily their Electoral College votes. Unfortunately, their chosen Electorate is not bound to cast their Electoral College vote in the manner the State legislature desires. However, the overwhelming vast majority of the Electorate do abide by their State legislature's wishes."
There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
"The questions are misleading. In regard to question #1, the candidate that gets 50% + 1 of the Electoral College votes from all 50 States and DC is elected President, which is the current Electoral College system. That is how it has always been."
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is how a candidate gets to 50% +1 Electoral College votes. That is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
Some states have not been been competitive for than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
• 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2008
• 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2008
• 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2008
• 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2008
• 9 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
• 15 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988
And that's not good. But it doesn't mean that political shift isn't happening. Come to the South, watch political shift in action. And stop relying on your website, which I'm sure recompenses you handsomely, to cut and paste from. It's irritating and does nothing for your credibility.
Try being a liberal in Arkansas. In the traditional Republican stronghold of Arkansas.
It's always frustrating to be voting for the losing side. Which is why it's important to understand that our political process isn't just about votes. It's about each of us being able to participate. We can each of us go to political rallies, and town meetings, and whistle stops, to participate in the conversation. We can each of write to our elected officials, and write to newspapers, and post in political forums on-line, and publish blogs. We are free to participate. But some of that participation depends on opportunity. And in the case of the election of the President, we shouldn't support a strategy that will permanently take part of our voters out of the conversation. We should embrace strategies that make all of us more involved. The electoral college, in a small degree, provides incentive to candidates to visit rural states they might otherwise ignore. Rural states, with small populations, that are already overwhelmingly outnumbered in Congress. The National Popular Vote only reinforces the minority status of rural states, and silences their vote when it comes to the executive branch. A minority in the legislature. Silent in selecting the chief executive. Neglible in terms of the judiciary. It's the recipe for disenfranchisement.
The electoral college, in NO degree, provides incentive to candidates to visit rural states they might otherwise ignore.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.
Arkansas is ignored by presidential candidates now. None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, Arkansas, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states. They have no influence. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
Senator Robert E. Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee for President in 1996 and Republican nominee for Vice President in 1976, stated in a 1979 floor speech:
“Many persons have the impression that the electoral college benefits those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a misconception. Through my experience with the Republican National Committee and as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1976, it became very clear that . . . Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance."
“Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in States that are perceived to be single party states."
The electoral college, in NO degree, provides incentive to candidates to visit rural states they might otherwise ignore.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.
Arkansas is ignored by presidential candidates now. None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, Arkansas, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states. They have no influence. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
Senator Robert E. Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee for President in 1996 and Republican nominee for Vice President in 1976, stated in a 1979 floor speech:
“Many persons have the impression that the electoral college benefits those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a misconception. Through my experience with the Republican National Committee and as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1976, it became very clear that . . . Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance."
“Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in States that are perceived to be single party states."
If a rural state is a battleground state---incentive. I said it was a small incentive, but nonetheless it's an incentive. I respectfully disagree with Senator Dole.
If you want more equality in the process (which I doubt, because National Popular Vote is definitely more broadly supported by the Democratic Party than the Republican Party), then work to change our primaries. We need regional primaries that rotate the order in which they occur each election. So that the Northwestern States have their primary first in 2016, and in 2020 the Upper Midwestern States get to hold their primaries first, and in 2024 the Southwestern States get to go first. One of the glaring weaknesses of our system is how early we weed out each party's potential candidates, and the fact that that weeding out is done by the same states in the same order over and over and over. Iowa and New Hampshire have enjoyed the political and monetary advantages too long, and the tradition is unfair to the rest of the country.
Take a look at some round numbers. Stay with me. It's all going to be worth it.
The percentage of undecided or truly independent voters in the US is around 20%. This is a moving target, but that's a good round average.
So, of the 80% that aren't undecided, we have 40% who are going to vote for Obama no matter what, and 40% who are going to vote Romney no matter what. (again, round numbers)
I read somewhere that 10 States are currently considered swing, or battleground States.
130 million citizens voted in the last Presidential election.
So, now some quick math.
Swing States are 10/50 = 20% of the Country.
130 million votes x 20% = 26 million total swing State voters
26 million x .20 true undecided voters = 5.2 million voters.
I know I'm playing a little fast and loose with the numbers, but my point is that it doesn't seem right that our candidates are about to spend Billions all to win the hearts and minds of 5.2 million undecided voters in the 10 battleground States. We're a Country with 310 million people in it, and 1.7% of those people are going to decide the election.
Now, if we get rid of the electoral college, all of the sudden, the entire Country is back in play. Then, every vote counts again. Overnight, it becomes a National election again.
Right now, with the electoral college, the Dems can take California and New York for granted, and the Repubs aren't going to waste any money campaigning in those States. Vise versa for Texas and pretty much the entire midwest. Red all the way. No Dem is going to waste money campaigning in those States.
Without the electoral college, all of the sudden, Romney can campaign in Cali because even if he only moves the actual vote total from 60/40, to 55/45, he would still get credit for those extra 5% of the vote, even though he still lost the majority in California.
I understand that the founding fathers wanted to give States rights some extra weight, so that's why we ended up with the College in the first place, but in today's America, it seems to me that what is even more important than States rights, is the rights of people in all 50 States to have their own individual vote actually count.
Eliminate the electoral college and about thirty states leave the union. There would be no point in being a part of the US any longer, as they would have no say in the presidential elections. Ten large urban centers would elect the president every four years.
Pure democracy does favor the Democratic political party. Democracy is FLAWED. Democracies ALWAYS favor urban dwellers over rural dwellers, because urban dwellers OUTNUMBER rural dwellers. And in the United States, any simpleton can look at election maps and see that urban areas vote for Democrats. Urban areas are BLUE. In RED states, Urban areas are BLUE, in BLUE states, Urban areas are BLUE. Rural areas are RED.
So your entire "in reality" remark isn't IN REALITY at all.
Is it perhaps because people of the opposing party don't even bother? I can't recall any time since I've been able to vote when NY's electoral votes went for a Republican presidential candidate. If I want to vote Republican wouldn't I be better of sitting at home? I know plenty of people who are Republicans that don't even vote anymore, because what's the point? I bet there are a lot of Democrats in Alabama and Mississippi that feel the same way. How would a popular vote disenfranchise Republicans? Not ever voter in blue areas vote for Democrats, correct? In my county 272,000 people voted for McCain. How wouldn't that count toward a popular vote?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some states have not been been competitive for than 50 years
