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.
The populous coastal blue states have dominated the popular vote, while the Republican candidates have won a large percentage of the counties across the "United States".
The blue states who support this do not care about giving the rest of the country a voice. They think that they should rule the entire U.S.
Because I know in at least my state of Vermont it's only a thinly veiled attempt to get more democrats elected as president. Same for most of those deep blue northeastern states on the list. When they watch their own electoral votes getting handed to a candidate who lost their state, people there are going to be pretty unhappy.
There's really no reason to try to derail a system that has worked well for over 200 years. The small states will have no voice in elections if this passes in enough states. Candidates will campaign in the few populous states to ensure a win of the popular vote (which is not reflective of all of the country), they won't even bother addressing the concerns of those in less populous states. Which will more likely simply result in the continued disintegration of this country along rural-urban lines.
They should be in favor of eliminating the US Senate too, since they want to kill the electoral college. This way the small blue states can have their dream of not having any voice in US federal politics at all.
All we need to do is understand that everything the elected Democrats want to do, is geared towards them getting elected. Promoting illegal immigration and sanctuary cities and states, open borders, lowering the voting age to 16, allowing felons to vote, adding D.C. and Puerto Rico as states, automatic voter registration, extended time for early voting, abolishing voter ID, abolishing the E.C., etc... None of these policies will make the US a better nation, all these proposals will do is improve the chances that Democrats will get elected.
The populous coastal blue states have dominated the popular vote, while the Republican candidates have won a large percentage of the counties across the "United States".
The blue states who support this do not care about giving the rest of the country a voice. They think that they should rule the entire U.S.
the dems have seen the electoral maps, with the nation 90% red, and small pockets of blue. They know the tiny minority of the nation, where the largest populations clusters are, is blue.
They are like two wolves and a lamb, discussing what the want for dinner.
The populous coastal blue states have dominated the popular vote, while the Republican candidates have won a large percentage of the counties across the "United States".
The blue states who support this do not care about giving the rest of the country a voice. They think that they should rule the entire U.S.
As opposed to some in the red states who prefer minority rule?
Everyone seems to forget that the Senate gives two Senators from every state. Wyoming has as much power in the Senate as does California.
The first time a Republican wins the overall national popular vote, but fails to earn enough electoral votes to have gotten 270 under the current system (in other words, the reverse of 2016), and all the blue states who signed up for this compact award that person their electoral votes, all the liberals in those states are going to go ballistic that their states just tossed their votes in the trash. But I guess that thinking out the various "what-ifs" isn't the strong suit of the states that have agreed to this.
There won't be a first time. Due to the massive population in California Republicans will never win a popular vote again. They can only win through the electoral college. Politics, other than perhaps the primary for Democrats, will become the most boring subject in the world.
What you see as "taking away" power is just merely creating equality. A vote in this proposal would have equal power no matter where it is cast. I personally think that is a beautiful thing.
And now regardless of where I live, I feel like my vote matters. Because today, it really doesn't matter in most states (blue votes in red states, and red votes in blue states).
wrong
under this pact:
the soro's pact (yes he is the one funding this) makes it so the EC votes of evry state goes to the winner of the 'popular vote'
so if the people RhodeIsland vote for candidate "A" overwhelmingly , but candidate "B" takes the national popular vote ALL the EC votes of RI go to Candidate "B", not matter the fact that they voted for candidate "A"
the 'pact' is not only unconstitutional, but unethical
under this pact:
the soro's pact (yes he is the one funding this) makes it so the EC votes of evry state goes to the winner of the 'popular vote'
so if the people RhodeIsland vote for candidate "A" overwhelmingly , but candidate "B" takes the national popular vote ALL the EC votes of RI go to Candidate "B", not matter the fact that they voted for candidate "A"
the 'pact' is not only unconstitutional, but unethical
As opposed to the "ethical" case where MORE Americans voted for candidate "B" but candidate "A" becomes President because of the particular PLACES where he happened to barely get the most votes?
HOW is that more "ethical"?
WHY are the votes of 80,000 people (that gave Trump the edge) split between Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio more important than the votes of 2,000,000 people (who gave Hillary the popular vote win) in California?
WHAT is "ethical" about that?
It certainly doesn't reflect the "will" of the American People, it just reflects the "outcome" of a particular method of counting votes.
HOW is that more "ethical"?
On Thursday, New Mexico became the 14th state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, joining California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia. The states, which represent a whopping 189 electoral votes, have agreed to shift their voting allocations once the group amasses 270 votes, the threshold needed to decide a presidential election.
Ohio is trying to be #15 and push it to 207 electoral votes.
Just shaking my head... but if that's what they want, oh well. No one seems to be making a large effort to stop it.
The whole idea of making every vote count through a popular election - actually makes your vote less relevant for the less populous states.
For a popular vote - the math says your vote count for 1 out of 130 million people (or however many vote).
Rhode Island had 450,000 vote in the 2016 election with 4 out of 538 actual electoral votes for president.
(1 vote divided by 450,000) x (4 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their vote effectiveness now is 1 out of 60.5 million votes. They just cut their influence in half by going to a popular vote. Congrats.
---------------------------
For California, about 14 million voted with 55 electoral votes.
(1 vote divided by 14 million) x (55 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their effective vote now is 1 out of 136,986,301 votes. With a popular vote - their influence will improve slightly.
---------------------------
For New York... 7.5 million voted with 29 electoral votes
(1 vote divided by 7.5 million) x (29 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their effective vote now is 1 out of 139,082,058. With a popular vote - their influence will improve slightly.
---------------------------
For Wyoming... 255,000 voted with 3 electoral votes.
(1 vote divided by 255,000) x (3 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their effective vote now is 1 out of 45.7 million. With a popular vote - their influence decrease greatly with a popular vote.
---------------------------
So just by my math... populous states win out with this. They have the majority of influence in the House, since it is based on population. Now you are giving them the presidency as well.
You will be sorry, for more reasons than math...
Mathguy - tell me if what I did with the math makes sense. I'm just asking... if anyone is going to complain about my math - have some substance. Don't just whine about it. We will see how it goes.
We have to remember it isn't that easy. They can agree all they want but that doesn't mean it can or will happen in our life time.
As opposed to the "ethical" case where MORE Americans voted for candidate "B" but candidate "A" becomes President because of the particular PLACES where he happened to barely get the most votes?
HOW is that more "ethical"?
WHY are the votes of 80,000 people (that gave Trump the edge) split between Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio more important than the votes of 2,000,000 people (who gave Hillary the popular vote win) in California?
WHAT is "ethical" about that?
It certainly doesn't reflect the "will" of the American People, it just reflects the "outcome" of a particular method of counting votes.
HOW is that more "ethical"?
Ken
Because our system is designed so populous states can't steamroll over smaller states. If California is going to decide every election, this country is going to be broken up in our lifetimes beyond a doubt. People in MI, MT, ID, WY, OH, WV, VA, and so on and so on aren't going to tolerate CA running the country.
Because our system is designed so populous states can't steamroll over smaller states. If California is going to decide every election, this country is going to be broken up in our lifetimes beyond a doubt. People in MI, MT, ID, WY, OH, WV, VA, and so on and so on aren't going to tolerate CA running the country.
Every State gets two Senators. Hard to steamroll over "smaller States" when they have more Senators than the larger ones.
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.
