National popular vote bill gets final approval in Delaware

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

National popular vote bill gets final approval in Delaware
Randall Chase, Associated Press Updated 5:58 pm CDT, Thursday, March 14, 2019

DOVER, Del. (AP) — Lawmakers have given final approval for Delaware to give its Electoral College presidential votes to whoever wins the national popular vote, not Delaware's vote.

The House voted 24-17 on Thursday to join 11 other Democratic-leaning states in a popular-vote compact. If the Democratic governors in Delaware, Colorado and New Mexico each sign their respective bills, the compact would have 189 of the 270 electoral college votes needed to elect the president.

The initiative was launched after Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost to George W. Bush. It gained steam after Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump.

Supporters say the change would make candidates pay more attention to voters outside traditional "battleground" states.

Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/us/article/National-popular-vote-bill-gets-final-approval-in-13689690.php

[woundedkarma]

1. popular vote is going to bite us all in the ***

It sucks that the republicans have gerrymandered the country such that they can easily defeat the electoral system.

I think the right way to fix that is by getting rid of gerrymandering which was represented to me in a textbook as being horribly wrong and evil and should be abolished 30+ years ago. (and I can't fing understand why it isn't completely illegal and banned)

I think moving to a popular vote system will give california and texas an overwhelming amount of control over our entire country.

It will disenfranchise minority communities every bit as much as gerrymandering.

[jcgoldie]

2. Nonsense

Popular vote is called "democracy".The person with the most votes win and every vote has equal weight. It doesn't give California and Texas more power except insofar as they have more people. What it does is it stops rednecks in places like the Dakotas from having their votes count double because they still get 2 senators (thereby padding their electoral college votes) even though proportionally no people live there.

[ProfessorPlum]

3. exactly

why should voters in populous states be penalized NOW for where they live? Their votes should count equally.

And think about how cool a presidential race is going to be when every human's vote actually matters? Not just campaigning in FL, PA, and OH, but trying to win votes across the whole country? I get very excited about that possibility.

[karynnj]

12. Exactly

However, it very obviously benefits us. That is why no red state has voted for it.

It is better for us because Democrats are the majority in every urban area. Imagine large, enthusiastic rallies in Central Park NYC, the commons in Boston, the national mall in DC, Grant Park or Navy pier in Chicago ... In Austin Texas, San Francisco, Low Angeles, Atlanta. With music, laughter and fun. Think of how many of those areas are NEVER the place for rallies in the general election. Their states are either too red or blue. The candidate concentrates on the battleground states.

Now, consider the Republicans. Yes, there have been large Trump rallies. But, could he ever beat any Democrat in the last weeks of a campaign holding a rally in Central Park? Now, consider how that could change the number of votes in the tri state area. Currently, it would not be worth the effort because we have NY,NJ, and CT.

[Power 2 the People]

8. +1

[Legrant]

11. Agree

[MicaelS]

9. Disagree Completely.

If it gives power to California, Texas, Florida and New York, so what? I am sick of every election having Ohio as a "battleground state".

California is Blue, Texas is headed that way. We should have never had the EC in the first place,

[California_Republic]

10. California has more power? No, 40 million people do

[Shrek]

4. It wouldn't be hard for a few states to subvert the whole thing

The premise is based on the fiction of a "national popular vote" which doesn't actually exist.

States could appoint their Electors without revealing any vote totals, or even appoint them by some means other than an election (e.g. the legislature). That would negate the concept of any kind of nationwide vote count.

[William Seger]

6. Not so

Republicans dominate the low-population states who get the most advantage from the current undemocratic system. If the NPV was in effect, we'd have had President Gore in 2000 and President Clinton in 2016. But the best reason for adopting this is that currently, most people live in states where they feel their vote doesn't really count because either their party or the opposition will almost certainly take all their state's electoral votes, and every presidential election comes down to almost the same handful of states deciding.

[lagomorph777]

7. How the hell would Turd win the popular vote with 35% approval? (Welcome to DU)

unless Putin hacks the machines, I mean...

[allgood33]

13. It always gripes my butt that Wyoming get 2 Senators just like NY. Designed to help slave owners

The two Senators in Wyoming and other sparsely populated western states wield unbalanced power over the lives of many people that they do not represent. This new trend may help.