Gallup Poll: Americans want to scrap Electoral College

[Turborama]

Source: USA Today

By Catalina Camia,
Updated 3h 2m ago

Americans have a message for the Founding Fathers: Let's pick presidents by popular vote.

A new Gallup Poll shows a strong majority of Americans -- 62% -- favor getting rid of the Electoral College. And for the first time, Republicans now agree with Democrats and independents that the popular vote should stand.

"Americans show relatively little attachment to this unique invention of the country's Founding Fathers," Gallup's Lydia Saad writes. "Those who advocate abolishing the Electoral College often do so on the basis that the system puts undue emphasis on a small number of swing states."

During the disputed 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, Gallup found that Democrats overwhelmingly wanted to scrap the Electoral College while Republicans did not.

Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/10/electoral-college-gallup-poll-popular-vote-/1

[libinnyandia]

1. The National Popular Vote Initative

The National Popular Vote Initiative would be good way to begin the process. A lot of Republicans would like to change the system in states where they would benefit and prevent changes in states where they would lose votes.

[dmallind]

2. Makes sense - it works against the majority, as designed

Since it gives less populous states more inflence than their headcount would.

Unfortunately for the majority opinion (mine too - and I have lived in both high and low pop. states) the mechanism to change it - constitutional amendment - is also biased in favor of low population states, so it's probably safe.

[Towlie]

73. Try this simple thought experiment:

Imagine that we currently have a presidential election system that works by simple majority vote.

Imagine that someone has just announced the invention of a new way of electing the president, called the "Electoral College", and wants the nation to switch over to it.

Now imagine people asking "Why would we want to do that?"

What answer could anyone possibly come up with that would be even slightly convincing?

[dmallind]

86. Now? Only that the smaller population centers get a bit more attention

At the time though states were much more along the lines of independent and competing governments. States even fought a few small wars against each other, so it would have seemed, and even been, much more important to have some kind of electoral parity then to prevent at the very least the fear that populous states would elect people to enact federal laws to benefit themselves over lesser states, but quite possibly to prevent the likelihood they actually might have.

Certainly an anachtronism today.

[mvymvy]

89. The National Popular Vote Bill

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill is state-based. It preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

A constitutional amendment is not needed.

NationalPopularVote

[dmallind]

104. Sounds interesting, but which states are committed?

Last time I heard of this was a while back and it was dominated by likely Dem states, and many were only willing to go along if a given number of other states did too. If this were truly national and had teeth, it would work well I agree.

[SkyDaddy7]

3. scrap it! Then Rethugs would have to moderate!

The country might not be held hostage by Red State America!

[Desertrose]

4. Get rid of Diebold too or it ain't worth the effort.

Just as easy to fix votes whether we use electoral college or popular vote.

Diebold & rigged voting needs to go.

[Turborama]

5. *Like* n/t

[Inuca]

7. I voted on a Diebold machien several times

has a paper trail, so it is fine by me. Down with everything is not a very constructive slogan.

[Fuddnik]

11. But, have you ever voted on a machine?

A paper trail means nothing. A paper BALLOT is what counts.

[Inuca]

24. I know how to spell, my typing OTOH... :-)

As to teh machines, I think that the paper trail is fine. As long as votes can be recounted and verified, I do not see what the problem is. The design can definitely be improved, the machine I used prints as you enter your vote, and you can see what is being printed through a tiny and akwardly placed window. Still, it's there, which makes it a HUGE improvement over early electroic voting machines where votes could be lost in electronic limbo.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Define 'paper trail'.

Does it kick out a receipt, saying what your vote was? You KNOW what your vote was - what you DON'T know is what was printed on the roll that stayed inside the machine.

If you vote X, and Y was printed on the roll, would you ever know?

[Inuca]

53. You can see what is being printed while you vote

and no, I did not get a receipt or anything like that. And as I already posted, the window through which you can see is awkwardly placed. So no, it's not the most user friendly and confidence inspiring design, but the trail IS there and is accurate (I looked).

[No Elephants]

69. Oprah claimed her vote changed before her eyes. BTW, not all voting machines are like that.

The ones Boston used to use did not allow the voter to see anything.

Boston went to paper ballots in 2004.

[area51]

88. computer programs

You do realize that a program can be written which captures your vote choices in one array, and uses that array to print out to the "receipt" as you type, while at the same time, is actually using the predetermined choices in a separate array from TPTB to vote for you, right? Why would this be an "unlikely" scenario? Our political system is so corrupt, there's no incentive not to do it, so the pigs can keep feeding at the trough, multiple wars of choice can continue, and this country will continue in this Depression for the foreseeable future.

[Inuca]

108. I do realize that

I even taught a course on ethical issues related to technology a few years back and I did cover issues related to e-voting. And I am not saying that all e-voting machines are OK, just that the one I have been using seems OK and it is a Diebold. And it is an unlikely scenario (though not an impossible one) when machines that have a paer trail that can be verified by the voter are being used because any verification that compares the elctronic tally to the paper one will show a discrepancy. Again, yes, it can happen, but no system is completely foolproof.

[midnight]

78. I like that idea of a receipt.... And then have an audit available....

[Donny]

49. Did the paper receipt match what you voted?

If so then no worries! Except for the fact that what was written to the hard disk may or may not reflect what was on the piece of paper. Paper trails are worthless.

[Inuca]

55. Yes, it did match

and if the paper trail accurately conveys the voter's choices, it's unlikely that the the system will be designed so that what is stored electronically will show something else.

Incidentaly, I live in a rural IL, so no big rich community, quite the contrary. And these were the machines they have at the city hall where I go for early voting. I only voted at my regular voting place once since I moved here some 7 years ago, November 04 :-(, the voting place is so in middle of nowhere I thought I got lost.

[Donny]

107. ????

"and if the paper trail accurately conveys the voter's choices, it's unlikely that the the system will be designed so that what is stored electronically will show something else."

You're kidding right? Ever hear of legerdemain? That's exactly what they want you to think!
:hi:

[No Elephants]

68. Self delete.

[rhett o rick]

76. Down with voting machines owned by corporations having political agendas. nm

[DoBotherMe]

8. Exactly

which probably is why the Republics are now in favor. Dana ; )

[MADem]

33. Very salient point, that. nt

[mvymvy]

90. Incentive & Opportunity for Fraud Maximized Now

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?"

[OHdem10]

6. It has now become the Tyranny of Minority in this country.

A small group is wagging the dog. The Majority is
essentially ignored.

It ain't working. When you have states that have more
trees than people calling all the shots, something is
wrong.

[harun]

21. It is one of many problems. Another is with population growth.

a small number of Senators gain more and more power. If the country goes from 100 million people to 300 million people (which we have), the number of people represented by each Senator goes up. The number of people represented by each Senator has gone up. Giving them say over what happens to a greater number of people. Same is true in the House, we used to have a limit that only X number of individuals could be represented by each Rep. They threw that out a while ago as well. Concentrating more power in to the hands of the few, away from the many.

The entrenched parties don't mind because it only benefits them and gives them more power. The Corporations don't mind because it is less campaign's they would otherwise have to contribute to, thus having to buy more politicians.

The losers in this are the majority, who has less representation with each passing year.

[greiner3]

26. I have a problem with the limited number of US Senators;

However, if the number of Reps had kept pace with the US population as put down by the original thinking of the Founders there would be thousands of Reps. Lol, just a hall large enough to hold all of them at one time would be of a size of say an NBA stadium.

[moondust]

56. Filibuster veto.

No representative government will ever work very well as long as a radical minority has veto power over everything.

[Fuddnik]

9. Scrap it!

Republicans are already tinkering with it, to come out in their favor.

[raccoon]

10. Get rid of it! Trouble is, what the 99% want and TPTB want aren't the same thing. nt

[Mnemosyne]

12. Can we make it retroactive to 2000? n/t

[Desertrose]

31. Only if we can turn back the clock & do it all differently. ....I wish!!

The wars, the lies the insanity I mean.

[Mnemosyne]

103. It has been a nightmare watching and waiting. OWS is first real hope I've felt

in a very long time.

[spin]

13. While this idea would be popular in states with a large population ..

it would meet considerable opposition from the smaller states.

Candidates could campaign only in a few states and support issues popular in large urban areas while totally ignoring the interests and issues of people in rural areas.

It definitely would benefit the Democratic candidate.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

58. Candidates already ignore most states anyway

No one worries about trying to woo Vermont or Wyoming.

[spin]

60. That is a valid point. (n/t)

[Retrograde]

67. Or California, or New York

except when they want money. I'd like my state to get maybe 10% of the attention, say, Iowa gets, or even Ohio. OTOH, we're not bombarded with ads just around election time.

[mvymvy]

93. 2/3rds of States and Voters are Ignored Now

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to over 2/3rds 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. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current 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. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

[mvymvy]

91. Small States Support a National Popular Vote

Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers -- including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, 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, and they are ignored.

[mvymvy]

92. 2/3rds of States and Voters are Ignored Now

With National Popular Vote, every vote is equal. Candidates would reallocate the money they raise to no longer ignore 2/3rds of the states and voters.

16% of Americans live in rural areas.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
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 obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

Any candidate who yielded, for example, 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 controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

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.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

[unblock]

14. while i agree in principle, it will only make (republican) election fraud worse.

first, it's not really possible to tell that the current system ever got it "wrong" in the sense that if a popular vote system had been in place instead of an electoral college vote system, then the campagining strategies would have been rather different and perhaps even the candidates themselves would have been different. so even in elections where the winner of the electoral college vote didn't win the popular vote, it's impossible to tell what would have happened had different rules been in place.


but more important is that the current system puts (arguably undue) emphasis on swing states -- solidly blue or solidly red states aren't worth campaigning in because the result is largely a foregone conclusion. but that means that any fraud there is irrelevant.

the fraud that matters in the current system is that fraud in the swing states, which tend to be more "purple" than most states. consequently, it's harder (though obviously still possible) to commit election fraud/theft in such states.


now imagine if you have a popular vote system across the nation. now every vote matters, regardless of whether it's in wisconsin or wyoming or massachusetts. that makes it far easier to commit election fraud out of sight of the opposition party. texas and georgia and alabama could certainly get away with saying the republican won 65-35 rather than the actual 55-45. republicans could argue, of course, that california or new york or massachusetts could do the same.

again, in principle, i like the idea of a popular vote system. but i think getting a system that's accurate and legitimate is far more important, and if we don't have that now, this will only make things worse.

[StatGirl]

18. I totally agree -- it opens the door to even more fraud.

The real problem with the Electoral College is that each state gets two extra votes for the senators. Take those out, and situations like Bush v Gore are extremely unlikely to happen.

Of course, this will never happen because it requires a constitutional amendment, and all the low-population states will refuse to play along. But there is a fix that doesn't require a constitutional amendment -- increase the number of congressional representatives by a factor of, let's say, 10. That should just take a statute, I think.

[unblock]

46. changing the number of representatives would be cause other problems

at some point, too many representatives becomes rather impractical, even if remote sessions were permitted.

moreover, the more representatives, the more gerrymandering influences outcomes.

[iamthebandfanman]

15. as much as i want to be behind this

i just cant..
i feel like their was a purpose for the creation of the electoral college...
that being equaling out the power so smaller states have just as much say..

at the same time tho, who wants an extra buffer between the will of the people and government?

definitely a hard decision, one that requires a solution that is fair to those states and at the same time liberates the will of the people as a whole... a solution im not smart enough to create ;)

[quakerboy]

54. I think

the biggest reason was time delay. You could have your election somewhere in the country, and it would be weeks before your vote return was added to the totals. Things could happen in that time. So instead of just sending totals, they set it up to sent representatives.

That is no longer an issue. Getting the vote total from Hawaii or California takes no longer than getting the vote total from NY or Virginia. It has become obsolete.

As to the smaller states... they are still quite well represented in that they have 2 senators, whether there is the EC or not.

[Yupster]

83. The Constitution doesn't even mandate a popular vote

for president at all.

Each state legislature was supposed to choose honorable citizens to serve as Electors.

Each elector would choose two people who they thought would make a good president. At least one of the two could not be from his home state.

The electoral vote would be opened in Washington and the House of Representatives would choose the new President from among the top three vote getters.

It was assumed most times there would not be a majority for one candidate.

Little by little states decided to choose their electors by a pop
The last state to do so was South Carolina. The first popular vote for President there was in 1868.

[mvymvy]

94. Delaware - 3 Electoral Votes, California - 55

Smaller states do not have just as much say as other states in the Electoral College. Delaware - 3 electoral votes. California - 55.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers -- including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." 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 are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

[mvymvy]

102. 26% Now Could Elect President

In the current system, it could only take winning the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

[Blue Hen Buckeye]

106. The idea it increases the influence of small states is myth.

I live in Delaware, we could not possibly be ignored anymore than we are now.

[PoliticAverse]

16. This would require a Constitutional Amendment, which requires 3/4 of states to approve...

Only 13 states need to not approve of an amendment to prevent its adoption.

Individual states can switch from a 'winner take all electoral votes' system to one in which electoral votes
are given in portion to the popular vote each candidate received in that state.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29

[totodeinhere]

23. Correct. And there almost certainly are enough small states that would refuse to ratify because

with the electoral college they have disproportionate power and I doubt if they would want to give that up.

[Bill McBlueState]

29. naw, check out the national popular vote compact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[totodeinhere]

51. Only nine states have ratified that. That's a far cry from a majority.

And even if enough states pass that law to get to enough states to represent 271 electoral votes, that would not scrap the electoral college. It would only change the way the states allocate their electoral votes. The OP is about support of the American people for scrapping the electoral college, not merely changing the way the states allocate their electoral votes.

[mvymvy]

96. NPV is 49% of the Way

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO - 68%, FL - 78%, IA 75%, MI - 73%, MO - 70%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM-- 76%, NC - 74%, OH - 70%, PA - 78%, VA - 74%, and WI - 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE - 75%, ID - 77%, ME - 77%, MT - 72%, NE 74%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM - 76%, OK - 81%, RI - 74%, SD - 71%, UT - 70%, VT - 75%, WV - 81%, and WY - 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR - 80%,, KY- 80%, MS - 77%, MO - 70%, NC - 74%, OK - 81%, SC - 71%, TN - 83%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, CA, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes-- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

[mvymvy]

95. Proportional System Problems

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own,, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does 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.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

[Jello Biafra]

17. The founding fathers created the Electoral College...

because they thought that the electorate was too stupid to vote for President so they created the notion of voting for an Elector for President.

They were indeed geniuses....

[Ter]

81. Most of us are too stupid, a majority can't even name the VP

And we never should have been able to vote for Senators either, but 1913 changed that. The Founding Fathers Founded this country, it's theirs more than ours. They really wanted the EC, it's disrespectful to scrap it.

[mvymvy]

97. Electors are Loyal Party Activists

The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable 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.

[Gman]

19. There is still such a thing as the tyranny of the majority

And the Electoral College was designed to protect the minority. Be careful what you ask for.

[libinnyandia]

28. inequality

The 20 smallest states have the same population as California, they have about 40 more electoral votes. we are all American. People vote, not states. Why should my vote mean nothing if my fellow Iowans vote for the other candidate. A candidate could lose by a very small margin in some states and win by large margins in other states and overall have many more votes but lose the election. We are first and foremost Americans and only secondarily New Yorkers , Georgians, Alabamans. etc (except of course Texas who seem to think being a Texan trumps being an American.)

[Gman]

64. As a matter of fact, yes, Texan (specifically natural born Texan) does trump being American

But that's beside the point. Again, be very careful of what you ask for.

[libinnyandia]

72. tyranny of the minority

The present system could be described as tyranny of the minority. One could make the case that each state should elect the same number of Representative that would ensure that tyranny of the majority would never occur.

[MadrasT]

65. +1

The founding fathers got this one right. Leave the electoral college alone.

[Yupster]

84. An interesting aside

When the Confederate States was formed, they wrote their Constitution over a few months on Montgomery.

They had lots of congressmen, senators, cabinet members and separated into subcommittees to write different parts of the Constitution.

They ended up making very few changes to the US Constitution.

For months they debated how to elect the President. After all was said and done they couldn't think of a better way so kept the Electoral College.

They did have only one term for president and it for six years.

They added a line item veto.

Otherwise, pretty much the same document.

[rhett o rick]

77. Explain why we wouldnt want a president elected by popular vote? nm

[mvymvy]

98. Mobs in Battleground States Decide Elections Now

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. We go through this exercise every 4 years

where the media reiterates the overhwhelming sentiment over and over and over like a broken record. And like "Ground Hog Day", we wake up 4 years later and rail against the same unchanged system once more.

[mvymvy]

99. Now States Can Enact National Popular Vote

Thankfully, there’s the National Popular Vote bill. It would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states or districts (in ME and NE). No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

Now, 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored.

States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president, without needing to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. It has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPopularVote

[brooklynite]

22. Unfortunately, the issue is NOT how many favor abolishment of the EC...

...it's how many favor abolishment ENOUGH to press State and Federal politicians to do something about it. I suspect it's not high on a lot of people's priority lists.

[demosincebirth]

25. There should be a movement started to get rid of this antiquated system we've

have for over 200 years. How do we start one?

[jeff47]

27. There is a problem with scrapping it

And it's illustrated by New York State.

Originally, NY had a house broken up by population, and a senate broken up by geography. That meant upstate NY's issues got a hearing in the legislature. In the 1970s, a lawsuit caused both houses to be based on population, instead of geography.

Today, upstate NY is doing very, very, very, very, very, very poorly. We make the rest of the rust belt look fantastic. Yet upstate issues can't get any traction in the legislature, because NY city absolutely dominates the legislature.

So eliminating the electoral college could result in a lot of real damage to the low-population areas of the country. That damage will probably be reduced by Congress continuing to over-represent rural areas, but it's not as obviously good an idea as it appears. Question becomes are the unintended consequences worth it?

[Bill McBlueState]

30. interesting

I hadn't thought about the case of New York before. But there has to be a way to get rural concerns heard without concocting an artifice as anti-democratic as the Electoral College.

[jeff47]

36. It requires some sort of anti-democratic artifice

Whether that be the electoral college or the makeup of Congress.

As mentioned in my previous post, the over-representation of rural areas in Congress is probably enough to counterbalance the President being elected by urban areas. In fact, the tension between Congress and the President because of those two constituencies might be a good thing. But we should take a few minutes to think about the possible results before changing it.

[treestar]

32. It only affects the Presidency

And it has only happened a few times where the popular vote winner did not win.

Reforming the Senate would go much farther to have an effect.

[tcaudilllg]

38. Agree.

If a state can't muster 10 electoral college votes, trim them to 1 senator.

[mvymvy]

100. Precariousness is Elevated Now

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.

[MrNJ]

34. The problem is not the electoral college per se

The problem is the way the electors are, well, elected. The Constitution requires the the electoral college. It doesn't say anything about the "all or nothing" system in place in 48 states. There's a perfectly reasonable middle ground - keep the electors but award them in proportion to the popular vote in the respective states. That way the popular vote is preserved (with smaller states having a slight edge) while at the same time problems like Florida 2000 do not happen. If FL awarded electors in proportion to the popular vote, the whole dispute in 2000 would only affect 1 or 2 electors rather than 25 and would not sway the election.

[tcaudilllg]

39. Gee, we'd be handing over the presidency to the GOP.

Or do you disagree?

[MrNJ]

44. of course I disagree

Gore won the popular vote as you probably remember. If electors were proportionate to popular vote, we would've won.

[tcaudilllg]

71. I'd work out the math first.

Just to make sure.

[mvymvy]

101. Congress Would Have Decided Bush/Gore Election

If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

[lovuian]

35. it isn't a democracy

it is a Republic

[jeff47]

37. It's a democratic republic, which is a form of democracy. (nt)

[Ter]

82. It's a Constitutional Republic

Not a democracy at all.

[jeff47]

87. Did you vote? Then it's a democracy.

Stop spewing fascist talking points. They don't make you sound clever, they make you sound like John Stossel.

[Recursion]

50. Republics can be democracies

The sets are not disjoint.

[Exultant Democracy]

75. Up with Democracy down with republicanism... simple

Corporations aren't people and giving representative rights to states which in turn disenfranchises people is equally ludicrous.

I am all for a measure of home rule but when it comes to national elections it should be one person one vote.

No taxation without representation... and if some guy's vote in Montana counts twenty times mine then that representation is worthless.

[slackmaster]

40. 62% is nowhere near enough, not that popular opinion has any direct bearing on it.

:nuke:

[garybeck]

41. QUESTION:

What makes you think our leaders give a flying f*ck what the American people want?

[Paper Roses]

42. Been saying this for about 50 years! Get rid if the EC.! n/t

[woo me with science]

43. Instead, get rid of corporate gerrymandering, vote suppression, etc.

The electoral college is not the problem here.

[Deep13]

45. yup. nt

[jimlup]

47. Why in the world would we want this antiquitated blockade to democracy?

That is unless we are rich rethugs who want to subvert democracy as often and as forcefully as we possibly can.

[taught_me_patience]

52. When candidates spend 100x more time in Iowa then California

something is seriously wrong with the process.

[Beacool]

57. Great idea!!!!

Gore would have been president in 2000.

:-)

[TygrBright]

59. ONLY with a Constitutional Amendment mandating voter verified PAPER BALLOTS. n/t

[penndragon69]

61. It was a good idea in it's day!

What a pain it would have been to transport all those paper ballots by wagon and horseback
for days just to get to Philadelphia.

But lets face it....since the mid 70's it has become an antiquated system that gives too
much power to rural farmers (who want to keep their farm subsides) and denies the MAJORITY
of urban dwellers much, if any say on the nominee.

It's time to bury this turd !

[Luciferous]

62. Yep, get rid of it.

[ScottLand]

63. Amen to that. The Electoral College has stood in the way of

democracy for far too long.

[No Elephants]

66. Doing away with the electoral college, Citizens United & Senate rules= big improvement

I mean doing away with the Senate rules that require super majorities.

[surrealAmerican]

70. What a silly poll.

It would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college, and that would require the approval of at least some of the very states that will lose their influence should the system change. It doesn't matter what the popular opinion is on this issue.

[24601]

74. Piece of cake! Just have 2/3 of the states call for a constitutional

convention and have 2/3 propose this as an amendment. Then, after 3/4 of the states ratify it, it becomes valid - just like the other proposed amendments getting 3/4 approval.

And best of all, you completely bypass all 3 branches of federal government - the states handle the whole thing.

[Angleae]

85. You won't get 3/4 approval or even 2/3rds.

Too many low EV states exist that will block it.

[defendandprotect]

79. It's just another tool of manipulation for benefit of elite -- !!

[Ter]

80. Too bad

It's here to stay.

[Festivito]

105. No, no, no. no, no, no! It's a big decision. Extra steps make sense.

These people have to come back to the states where they live and answer to the vote they gave.

The pundits on the TV don't. The pundits can report any numbers they want.

Yes, it can lead to close elections going one way or the other despite the reported overall count. But, that overall count has an ugly ugly underbelly that the top lying math only covers to those who don't look deeper.

Math looks good on the surface. Still, garbage in, garbage out rules.

[classysassy]

109. Other western democracies

use the popular vote,could it be we are not a democracy?