Debating the validity of the Electoral College

[@bettyboop3206]

In a presidential election, what's wrong with one person one vote? It's a Federal office. Let each American's vote be counted. My 8th grade history teacher said the electoral college should be done away with. That was in 1973. States shouldn't elect the president. The voters should.

[@oldgulph707]

The National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws. 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. The bill changes state 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 are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law. All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

[@GrantAugustus1]

The people do vote for the president but we have the Electoral College because of change of population count!!!!

[@oldgulph707]

@@GrantAugustus1 - That makes NO sense. States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law. All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Now, and with the National Popular Vote bill, states have 3 - 54 electors. Incorrect 2020 census numbers, because of Trump’s interference, probably allowed 2 blue-leaning states with overcounts - Minnesota and Rhode Island - to keep seats they shouldn’t have, given that they just barely cleared the bar for keeping those seats. Minnesota kept its seat by a scant 26 people, and both states had been expected to lose seats before the bureau announced otherwise. The undercounts in Florida and Texas might well have cost those two red-leaning states seats that they were on the cusp of adding. Texas did gain two other seats, but its 1.9 percent undercount was enough to deprive it of half a million people in apportionment. In pre-census population projections, both states had been on track to gain an additional seat. In 2000, Bush won with 271 electors. 270 are needed to win. The 25 smallest states combined have had 57 Democratic electors and 58 Republican electors. CA has 54 electors Now, states with 3 electors range in population of less than 577,000 to almost a million. Mathematically NOT balanced, fair, equal, or proportional. In 2020 276,765 popular votes were cast in Wyoming (3 electors) 336,000 ish in DC (3 electors) 603,650 popular votes were cast in Montana (3 electors). Each Republican popular vote in Alaska was worth 1.8 times as much per elector as each Republican popular vote in Montana. More than 900,000 more votes were cast in Pennsylvania with 20 electors (6,915,283) than Illinois with 20 electors (6,003,744). Florida (R) with 29 electors (11,067,456) cast almost 3.5 million more votes than New York (D) with 29 electors (7,616,861). 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.

[@robertseavor4304]

Without the College a handful of big states would elect every president. The other states would have no say.

[@GrantAugustus1]

@@robertseavor4304 Right!

[@turbo_brian]

The electoral college needs to go. Why are people in wyoming's vote more valuable than people in california? They're not. Popular vote is the only fair method. The electoral college was a solution to problems faced by people who used candles to read at night. We have computers. We don't have to worry about a state claiming they have more population than they actually do and we don't have to send a person by horseback to washington with our vote tally.

[@oldgulph707]

The National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws. 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. The bill changes state 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 are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law. All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

[@CaptainCrunch230]

The Republicans would never win national elections. In the past 35 years they have won one election with a popular vote (Bush in 2004, before that his dad in 1988). With the EC or the 'participation trophy award' the GOP could lose the popular vote by 5, 6 million votes and still get the election. Trump called 2016 a 'landslide' victory and he lost by over 3 million votes. It's all the GOP have, that and gerrymandering because they definitely don't have policy to win elections.

[@alejohernandez75]

Because California is a liberal sh**hole.

[@sr2291]

We shouldn't vote by states. We should vote by the people. It shouldn't matter where you live.

[@bobbys2643]

@@oldgulph707 guy I don’t know if you’re for or against whatever the banana argument is but I keep seeing your novel copy and pasted on every comment please stop.

[@jockyoung4491]

None of it will matter if the Supreme Court allows state legislatures to choose the next President.

[@bobbun9630]

The case you're likely referring to is actually about apportionment, but yes, the same rules would likely end up applying on presidential elections. Technically state legislatures can already do that. The nomination of electors via an election of the people of a state has been the norm since the early 1800's, but it wasn't the rule at the founding. What state legislatures can't do, or at least shouldn't have the power to do, is hold an election then decide they don't like the result and change the rules afterwards to fit their partisan agenda, as many Trump supporters wanted in 2020. Either way, though, Congress could severely punish states engaging in such behavior if it ever got its act together and enforced section two of the fourteenth amendment. A state denying the right to vote for presidential electors to all its inhabitants could be denied all representation in the House of Representatives.

[@Txepsiyu]

Well legislators can't manipulate a popular vote.

[@jvcyt298]

@@Txepsiyu; Gerrymandering is their way of doing just that.

[@jtrain9926]

@@jvcyt298 but if you remove by district voting you remove the gerrymandering. Congress shouldn't represent "land", it represents people.

[@elizabeth_777]

The electoral college needs to go.

[@drowningpooralice5505]

Why?

[@2Littoral]

@@drowningpooralice5505because the Supreme Court is representing 3 Republican Presidents, 2 of which could not win the majority of voters. 3 of which could not win twice. That’s how you lose consent of the governed and the system breaks down.

[@AndreaCuchetto]

@@drowningpooralice5505 - Did you even listen to this interview?

[@billyboycinci]

@@drowningpooralice5505 because the last two Republican presidents lost the popular vote, but still won the presidency. Yeah yeah, I know Bush won in 2004, but he wouldn't have been there if not for the electoral college.

[@X2LR8]

No, it stays. We are not a direct democracy. Every state gets a seat at the table and that's be design. However, I would be Ok with doing away with the Electoral College if we moved to a system of 50 presidents, one from each state all with equal say at the national level.

[@ianpatrick3589]

The argument to get rid of the college is far stronger than the arguments to retain it.

[@sharonwells9593]

The electoral vote was made in order that all states and their countryside residents would have fair representation because many couldn't or didn't get out to vote. So the state's electoral college chose representation for everyone in each state. However, this modern day, there are very few people who can't vote unless mail-in ballots are outlawed. Thus the responsibility for who is president lies exactly right on the back of the voters not electoral colleges.

[@irishlady30]

I'm from Massachusetts and I don't believe my vote counts when it comes to the electoral college....

[@ineedyourvalidation8295]

It doesn't count anywhere...👈🤔... I'm only the messenger...

[@ineedyourvalidation8295]

Nice hair...👈🤔... 🤔👉 I mean, on your upper lip...

[@jimjett9996]

When someone else votes for you , and they vote for themselves at the same time , it is not going to count for you let's be honest about it !

[@oldgulph707]

@Somey - All voters in the biggest states do not vote for the same presidential candidate. With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 38 smaller states. 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! But, the political reality is that the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter. Under a national popular vote, the margin of your loss within a state matters as much as the size of your win. In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally: * Texas (62% R), 1,691,267 * New York (59% D), 1,192,436 * Georgia (58% R), 544,634 * North Carolina (56% R), 426,778 * California (55% D), 1,023,560 * Illinois (55% D), 513,342 * New Jersey (53% D), 211,826 To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 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). Smart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running. Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now. Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 4 of them. Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.

[@JamesSmith-rh4is]

A pure democracy actually does not equal mob rule in any way shape or form at all.

[@Norm_MacLeod]

One person, one vote.....true democracy.

[@Americasinertia]

There's no democracy since Benedict Biden corruptly took office

[@r00kr0LL4u]

@T you arent american

[@OriginalPiMan]

@T A constitutional republic and a representative democracy. The two are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they overlap often.

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

Democracy is the only system that guarantees a free society.

[@nipponsuxs]

@@Tommy2socks democratic republic, state election are decided by the popular vote, so should the presidency. A president with the popular support of Americans

[@Impozalla]

Yes, the electric college vote system needs to be abolished. A popular vote should only matter at this point.

[@mikejones5364]

Electoral College is constitutionally mandated, and abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment. So Fake News on your comment.

[@JamesSmith-rh4is]

There is no doubt that getting rid of the electoral college would be a good thing for the future of America as a country.

[@brandon3525]

getting rid of the electoral college would be racist

[@jorgegonzalez-larramendi5491]

a trollski attacked you. i reported him fyi .. quick to retorn maybe bot-assisted : )

[@Carl_Grissom_Sr]

America is a constitutional republic, not a majority rule democracy

[@Carl_Grissom_Sr]

@@jorgegonzalez-larramendi5491Hey widdle didums, I reported you for putting a false report on a commentator 😂

[@winstonsmith8565]

@@jorgegonzalez-larramendi5491 Reported

[@blacksquirrel4008]

There is only one elected office that represents every America and EVERY American should have an equal say in who that person will be. The Republican in California and the Democrat in Alabama should not be silenced.

[@oldgulph707]

Support the National Popular Vote bill.

[@rodney9114]

No one’s vote should have more power than another because of where they live. One person, one vote. Abolish the electoral college.

[@roejogan7770]

They don’t

[@oldgulph707]

@@roejogan7770 - If the 2022 Election Were a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by 2.8 percentage points, 3 million votes. 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. 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. 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 national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836. After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College." 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).

[@roejogan7770]

@@oldgulph707 but the 2022 election wasn’t a presidential election

[@TheModelOmega]

At least it’s not destroying our democracy to the same scale as gerrymandering.

[@oldgulph707]

“ . . . the mechanics of the Electoral College allowed the defeated president to incite his followers into mounting the first attempt in U.S. history to seize the presidency by violence. Far from preventing them, the anti-majoritarian mechanisms of presidential elections were the crucial culprit in creating the “tumult and disorder” and the “heats and ferments” that so worried the authors of the Constitution.”- David Frum, 2/15/21 “The Constitution is hanging by a thread . . . The funny thing is, I always thought it would be the other guys. And it’s my side. That just rips at my heart: that we would be the people who would surrender the Constitution in order to win an election. That just blows my mind.”- Former Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R) He called a failed Republican proposal that would have allowed the legislature to overturn election results in his state akin to “fascism.” “The legislature, after the election, could dismiss the election.” Trump promises pardons AND government apology to insurrectionists if re-elected Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have pleaded GUILTY to seditious conspiracy. The National Guard may have failed to adequately protect Congress because top military officials feared Trump could turn around and use the troops to undermine the Constitution itself to attempt to hold onto power by invoking the Insurrection Act. 3 retired U.S. Army generals have warned of insurrection or possibly even civil war if the results of the 2024 presidential election are not accepted by sections of the military. Referencing the challenge to the 2020 election results by Trump and his supporters that led to the violence of the January 6, 2021 assault on the US Capitol, 8 former defense secretaries and five ex-joint chiefs chairmen, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, signed a statement on 16 "Best Practices of Civil-Military Relations that warns of political interference in the military Veterans and reservists made up nearly 30% of 2022 political candidates who questioned the 2020 election. There have been hundreds of Oath Keepers at the DHS. On January 6th, more than half the Republicans in Congress failed to act to protect the affirmation of the 2020 certified presidential election results of the states. The group of 147 senators and representatives who objected to Biden’s victory, the so-called “sedition caucus,” raised a staggering amount of money for the 2022 election cycle-nearly $200 million. While more than 120 corporations pledged to suspend political donations to Republicans who voted to overturn the election, the data shows a different story. Most Senate Republicans voted not to impeach Trump for inciting the insurrection, and voted against a bipartisan congressional commission to investigate the insurrection. McCarthy threatened tech and telecom firms that comply with Jan. 6 committee’s request for phone records. Republican U.S. Representatives Gaetz, Gohmert, Brooks, Perry, Biggs, and Greene asked for presidential pardons after January 6. 33% of Republicans have supported the actions of the January 6 insurrectionists. 33% of Republicans said in June 2021 that Jan. 6 was an insurrection, now just 13%. 62% of Republicans called it a riot, now down to 45%. 47% said it was a legitimate protest, now up to 61%. In January 2021, 56% of Republicans understood Jan. 6 as an attempt “to overturn the election and keep Trump in power,” by December 2021, just 33%. By early September 2022, an estimated 13 million had insurrectionist sentiments. In October 2022, 71% of registered Republicans were comfortable voting for a candidate who believes the 2020 election was “stolen. 2/3 of all voters think Trump tried changing 2020 election outcome. More than 65% of those think he should be prosecuted for his actions. About half of all voters believe Trump committed a crime. “Trump and his supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.” “. . . to this very day the former president, his allies and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024 - if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican Party presidential candidate were to lose that election - that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election.” - Judge Luttig His Republican credentials are impeccable, and his warning about the former president and his supporters is unequivocal.

[@Laura-LaFauve]

Excellent! A quality interview by Mr. Velshi!

[@ineedyourvalidation8295]

BIDEN BUSTED !!!...👈😂... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!...👈🤣

[@Laura-LaFauve]

@@ineedyourvalidation8295 weirdo

[@ineedyourvalidation8295]

@@Laura-LaFauve "Infant" troll....👈😂..aww...you're cute..

[@jockyoung4491]

@Somey Someone disagreeing with you does not actually prove they are lying.

[@guynorth3277]

@@ineedyourvalidation8295 ; Your brain is busted, you are festering with confirmation bias, and you entire empty life will reflect that.

[@susankwak3576]

Let there be one person one vote

[@karolyndurrenmatt9772]

Thank you for explaining that.

[@danriley5848]

The Electoral College has to go, period.

[@jockyoung4491]

Maybe, but it wouldn't really fix anything

[@oldgulph707]

Instead, the National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws. 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. The bill changes state 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.

[@oldgulph707]

@@jockyoung4491 - States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law. All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

[@jerryparks6123]

Why because BIDEN won the 2020 Presidential election LEGITIMATELY! 🤔.

[@MsRollingstone11]

It takes a politician to make this complicated. One voice, one vote.

[@kurtdunbar912]

One person, one vote...PERIOD! No more arcane anachronism that is the Electoral College.

[@banshee6k]

IMO the biggest flaw of the EC is that the electors have no training or standards and guidelines by which to actually qualify or disqualify a candidate. Gov's choose people who hold their values and the American people trust that these people know what they're doing. The EC is a majority flawed system and should end.

[@roejogan7770]

Training? What sort of training should they get?

[@oldgulph707]

The electors have been and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 24,605 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 31 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 29 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. The 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision again upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors). States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors. Pennsylvania law empowers each party’s presidential candidate to nominate all elector candidates directly. The presidential nominee is, after all, the person whose name actually appears on the ballot on Election Day and who has the greatest immediate interest in faithful voting by presidential electors. North Carolina law declares vacant the position of any contrary-voting elector, voids that elector’s vote, and empowers the state’s remaining electors to replace the contrary-voting elector immediately with an elector loyal to the party’s nominee. In Arizona, HB2302 went into effect in August 2017. Electors must cast their vote for candidate and vice president candidate who jointly received the highest number of votes in the state. If the elector refuses to cast that vote, they will no longer be eligible to hold their position as an elector. If any candidate wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would not elect that candidate.

[@geisaune793]

I'm no fan of the electoral college but I'm glad that legitimate arguments against its abolition were brought up. I will admit they were good points. I still lean on the side of electing the president by popular vote but it's clear that more study is needed. (Or at least we need to get to a place where our republic is more secure and free from the threat posed by donald and his lackeys in the GOP)

[@oldgulph707]

States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law. The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. No statewide recount, much less a nationwide recount, would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 60 presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count. 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 All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation. The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes-270 of 538. All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)-thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority. The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 41 state legislative chambers in 25 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 283 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 195 electoral votes -

[@geisaune793]

@@oldgulph707 Alright man, look. I'm just going to admit that I didn't read that entire reply because I'm not going to read a dang novel in the youtube comments. Have you heard of brevity? You gotta tighten it up. People have short attention spans these days. Still, I read enough to know that you're talking about the Popular Vote Interstate Compact (which I am aware of because they talked about it in the video) and the guest, the guy who came up with the Compact, still brought up very good points about why there are still problems with it. Add to that fact that few if any Republican controlled legislatures are going to pass it because the two most recent presidents to win an election without the pop. vote were Republicans.

[@audreyw115]

@@geisaune793wow I can’t imagine how long that post was. It’s gone now.

[@selftaopath]

How about compulsory voting?

[@oldgulph707]

@@geisaune793 - WHAT good points? The compact would NOT require national uniformity and bureaucracy. It would NOT put a sitting President in charge who easily could influence system. The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count. “The fact that no state uses an Electoral College for its governor suggests that many standard arguments for the Electoral College - recount nightmares, fairness for rural areas, etc. - are makeweight. If these arguments were truly sound, then states are stupid. And states are not stupid.”- Akhil Reed Amar, professor of political science and law at Yale The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against “pure insanity,” deception, manipulation, and, recently, crimes and violence. ⁠ The current presidential election system makes state recounts more likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000 or 2016 or 2020, no recount would have been an issue. The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting. No statewide recount, much less a nationwide recount, would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 60 presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count. 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 The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the minuscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida. Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state by-state winner-take-all methods. The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote. The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes. Statewide recounts WERE rare before the Big Lie of 2020. Margin shifts are smaller in larger elections We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount. Given that before 2020, there had been a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, we expected a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes. The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections. From 2000-2019, statewide recounts resulted in an average margin shift of only 430 votes between the frontrunners, representing 0.024% of the vote in those elections. The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets. State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill. In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats. The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4. Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill. In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill. In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28-18 margin. In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill. NY and CA enacted it with bipartisan support. On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill. In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21-18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18-16.

[@ianreed9571]

Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million in 2016, more than double that in 2020(7 million), so I'm guessing it will at least triple(21 million) in 2024!😂😂😂

[@ineedyourvalidation8295]

Cope harder...👈

[@josephsonora3787]

That's because the Dems had dead people votes. And in 2024 the Dems won't just have the zombie vote, but they also will have the illegals vote. Why you think the Dems don't worry about the border crossings? VOTES VOTES VOTES!

[@mikejones5364]

DeSantis will be President in 2024, Trump magic is gone, DeSantis has it now.

[@melissadouglas570]

More coverage of this topic, please. Thank you.

[@aishabintabubakr4944]

There is nothing to discuss. If you feel that 3 states can control all the elections then you support banning the electoral college

[@oldgulph707]

@@aishabintabubakr4944 - Math and political reality. The most populous SIX STATES are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois. They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population. All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate. Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome In 2016, CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote. In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote. Trump won those states All the voters - 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally. States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes. All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. The National Popular Vote bill would NOT abolish or ban the Electoral College. We would NOT vote on everything. The Electoral College is ONLY about presidential elections. The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. would continue to represent us.

[@aishabintabubakr4944]

@@oldgulph707 You are making a huge assumption. The electoral college diminishes NYC's 10 million+ Democrat votes (which make up the entire population of many states alone). NY has more than just NYC each with millions of Democrat voters

[@ts1931]

We need straight one vote one person!

[@babusastry]

In this day of constant instant cerebral communication, no bars existing across state travel, cross state employer employee relationships, the electoral system looks ALMOST downright SILLY

[@mnemosynevermont5524]

END the Electoral College, and gerrymandering. Make Ranked Choice voting national and make all votes count at ALL levels!

[@kimocoloma4123]

Make America a Banana Republic.

[@mnemosynevermont5524]

@@kimocoloma4123 Serve Trolls for Dinner

[@eric2500]

If we had direct national popular vote for the president everyone's vote would count. I'd like to have a majority of Americans decide who wins, rather than the majority of Floridians or New Yorkers or Georgians. *The states could still run the mechanism- NOT the federal government- ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL RULES*

[@Sonicman415]

It’s been outmoded for decades. Even more so now.

[@LogicAndReason2025]

The argument for fair treatment of low population states is already satisfied by the Senate. A president should represent with the will of the whole population.

[@patcomerford5596]

Get rid of the arcane Electoral College and have a simpler system of franchise: one person one vote. The second best could be Proportional Representation as you have in the Republic of Ireland. It would be better than the ineffective Electoral College which does not recognise the vote of every American.

[@oldgulph707]

@Somey - States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law. All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. would continue to represent us. 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 All voters in the biggest states do not vote for the same presidential candidate. With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 38 smaller states. 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! But, the political reality is that the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter. Under a national popular vote, the margin of your loss within a state matters as much as the size of your win. In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally: * Texas (62% R), 1,691,267 * New York (59% D), 1,192,436 * Georgia (58% R), 544,634 * North Carolina (56% R), 426,778 * California (55% D), 1,023,560 * Illinois (55% D), 513,342 * New Jersey (53% D), 211,826 To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 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). Smart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running. Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now. Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 4 of them. Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.

[@oldgulph707]

@Somey - My comments are what MATH and POLITICAL REALITY look like.

[@alejohernandez75]

Under the electoral college system States have the same number of votes as they have representative votes in the house. Nothing arcane about that.

[@patcomerford5596]

@@somey9685"It is not designed...." that is the solid rationale for getting rid of the Electoral College.

[@patcomerford5596]

@@somey9685 "mob rule" are you serious? What of the lying fascist MAGA-GOP attempted coup on J6?

[@LogicAndReason2025]

It is time to change - we must admit that people who owned other people were not infallible.

[@oldgulph707]

Support the National Popular Vote bill.

[@susanlueem8267]

So refreshing to hear a for AND against explanation.

[@mrzoinky5999]

But Trump would never have gotten into power if the majority had it's way in 2016 .... so yes , one person, one vote is clearly the way to go.

[@Americasinertia]

Maybe. To bad Benedict Biden won. (corruptly)

[@oldgulph707]

@T - George W. Bush LOST California and New York in 2004 and still won the popular vote. In 2020, There were more Republican votes in CA than Texas. There were 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! None helped Trump in any way. There were more Democratic votes in Texas than in NY. None helped Biden in any way. California and New York state had a total of 24,243,000 registered voters. 15% of the total number of registered voters in the US in 2018 (which is 153,066,000). 5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas. 1,366,760 New Yorkers live in rural areas. Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter. California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million). In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote. California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population All voters in any state do not all vote for the same candidate. Now, all electors of a state all vote for the statewide winner. No losing party voters for president matter in any way in each state. Alone, California and New York could not determine the presidency. In total New York state and California (84 electors in total) cast 16% of the total national popular vote In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20) (87 total) cast 18% of the total national popular vote. Trump won those states. All the voters - 66% -- in the 45 other states and DC would matter and count equally. The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states. In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012. About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY. New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic. Under a popular-vote system CA and NY Democrats would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be offset by NY and CA Republican votes. The vote of every voter in the country (rural, urban, suburban) (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) in every state would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. California and New York enacted the National Popular Vote bill with bipartisan support, to make every vote for every candidate, matter and count equally. 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. 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 On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill. In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21-18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18-16.

[@thomasmurphy1562]

There's no strong argument to remove the electoral college. In each state a person gets one vote and no one or two states control the who wins because they have more people.

[@oldgulph707]

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . . 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. 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. 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. States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law. All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

[@oldgulph707]

@Somey - The National Popular Vote bill KEEPS the Electoral College! The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes-270 of 538. All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)-thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority

[@rogerdorsey7823]

THE POPULAR ELECTORAL SYSTEM WOULD BE FAIR TO THE LESS POPULATED AREAS ONLY IF WE ADHERE STRICTLY TO THE US CONSTITUTION AND PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY.

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

Surely democracy means that every vote should count equally, not based on where you choose to live.

[@oldgulph707]

Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition. 59,849,899 people have lived in the 100 biggest cities. 59,492,267 in rural America. In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities. 19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. 19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws in presidential elections, in some states, big city Democratic votes can outnumber all other people not voting Democratic in the state. All of a state’s votes may go to Democrats. Without state winner-take-all laws, every conservative in a state that now predictably votes Democratic would count. Right now they count for 0 The current system completely ignores conservative presidential voters in states that vote predictably Democratic. Under a national popular vote, rural voters throughout the country would have their votes matter, rather than being ignored because of state boundaries. For example: 5,187,019 Californians have lived in rural areas. 1,366,760 New Yorkers have lived in rural areas. Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter. That’s why California and New York enacted the National Popular Vote bill with bipartisan support. 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. 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 On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill. In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21-18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18-16.

[@gideonporter537]

Unfortunately the Founding Fathers never meant for every vote to count equally - what they wanted was (as best as possible) to preserve the status quo of the time - which was for each state/province at the time to have an equal say in the running of things - and so, every state got two votes (irrespective of size or population). It meant smaller states couldn't be out-muscled or bullied by bigger or more populous states....a kind of equality of states rather than an equality of the voters. And that's pretty much it. Maybe it is a time for a change though....Its why Colorado (5million) has the same power as California (40million)......and that's the way founders wanted it..... (oh and no black voters, or women, or...well, pretty much anyone except white christians..... which is what MAGA is really all about..... go figure....

[@ineedyourvalidation8295]

That's racist, but we don't care..👈🤔

[@oldgulph707]

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. NY 28. 270 are and would be needed to win the Electoral College. All voters in the biggest states do not vote for the same presidential candidate. With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 38 smaller states. 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! But, the political reality is that the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270+ electoral votes agreeing to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law. All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

[@gideonporter537]

@@oldgulph707 Nice explanation. But I was simply pointing out why the Electoral College was set up - instead of a popular vote from the get go. I still like your analysis however

[@andrewwhitebaritone5974]

Exactly. Without the Electoral College Wyoming would be completely disenfranchised which, in my personal opinion, would not be bad, because I disagree with the prevailing politics there, but if the idea is to avoid disenfranchisement you must take into consideration group-think.

[@gideonporter537]

@Somey but is it a State that determines democracy - or people.....We the People.... 🙂

[@alanbailey5621]

People vote for president, not states.

[@roejogan7770]

Each state can choose how they want to run their presidential election per the tenth amendment

[@alanbailey5621]

@@roejogan7770 Not if you change the rules.

[@roejogan7770]

@@alanbailey5621 well you’d have to get each state to agree per the tenth amendment. That’s the rule

[@verilyveronica8430]

No electoral college and 35 states leave.

[@oldgulph707]

The National Popular Vote bill KEEPS the Electoral College. It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 41 state legislative chambers in 25 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), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6). The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 195 electoral votes - 72% of the way to guaranteeing 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 would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 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.

[@verilyveronica8430]

@@oldgulph707 Lies. Any change and I’ll revolt and you will never be able to eat out without the risk of poison. I’m not going to be a slave.

[@oldgulph707]

@@verilyveronica8430 - 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” "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted. 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. If the 2022 Election Were 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), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Nixon (R-CA) Supporters of the National Popular Vote bill have included former Gov. Gary Johnson (Libertarian - NM), Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R-IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) 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.” The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote has included former Congressman John Buchanan (R-Alabama), and former Senators David Durenberger (R-Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R-Utah), plus Michael Steele (former RNC Chair), and Rick Tyler Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the National Popular Vote plan would not help either party over the other. Bob Barr (2008 Libertarian presidential candidate): “Only when the election process is given back to all of the people of all of the states will we be able to choose a President based on what is best for all 50 states and not just a select few.” Supporters include: The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson. Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote: “A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College." Rick Tyler, senior member of Senator Ted Cruz's campaign team, serving as the National Spokesman and Communications Director for Cruz for President. “Let’s quit pretending there is some great benefit to the national good that allows the person with [fewer] votes to win the White House. Republicans have long said that they believe in competition. Let both parties compete for votes across the nation and stop disenfranchising voters by geography. The winner should win.” - Stuart Stevens (Romney presidential campaign top strategist) " . . . a president should be elected by national popular vote is not radical, it is actually mainstream. . . . We can get closer to the national popular vote having greater weight in presidential elections and having a president represent all Americans in ways that don’t require amending the Constitution. These fixes will make presidential candidates run more diverse campaigns, and campaign in all cities and communities of our country. . . . That will help unify us more as a country, and would likely lead to more informed public policy. How can anyone be against that outcome?" - Matthew Dowd (Senior George W. Bush campaign strategist) When presidential candidates who more Americans voted for lose the Electoral College, the situation is unsustainable. This is how a government loses its legitimacy. Unfair election systems can lead to politicians and their supporters who appreciate unfairness, which leads to more unfairness. 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. 21,461 choices and votes in 3 states were 329 times more important than the more than 7 million national vote lead in the country. There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. That could have reduced future turnout more, if more voters realized their votes do not matter. Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic. More than 3,522 state legislators among all 50 states have endorsed it. The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 41 state legislative chambers in 25 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), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6). The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 195 electoral votes - 72% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

[@annchristine47]

The Electoral college is obsolete.C’mon America,you will be doing yourselves a big favour .We are in the 21rst century and we keep saying we want our elections to be fair!

[@freetochoose6421]

The electoral college is very antiquated and needs to be redone.

[@kimocoloma4123]

It's been proposed many times and always failed in Congressional votes.

[@SkyP1e]

I've been questioning the Electoral College since I was in the 6th grade debating teachers. Why do we let 30% of the country (the whackiest 30% IMHO) pick our presidents?

[@nerffej]

Because it favors the GOP and enables minority rule. They'll fight tooth and nail until that changes or attempt a coup. Oh wait

[@gabrieladebisi5828]

the whackiest? i think you mean the people that feed this country correct?

[@jimbrew4529]

The people don't elect our president, the states do. I thought the "states rights" experiment failed and ended in 1865?

[@jtrain9926]

That way the youknowwhos don't have to adjust their unpopular views to keep getting about half the electoral votes every election cycle.

[@jimbrew4529]

@Ruedabaker 7 Did your parents install this hatred in you, or did you get wrecked by other influences?

[@rosameryrojas-delcerro1059]

The electoral college needs to disappear.

[@8arrows]

Vote online. We don’t need electoral college. We only created that to speed up the count of votes. Because back then. A ballot-vote tally would take weeks to ship results across the country. Now the votes can be counted in real time.

[@GrantAugustus1]

It is actually based on population!!!

[@oldgulph707]

@@GrantAugustus1 - 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. Now, and with the National Popular Vote bill, states have 3 - 54 electors. Incorrect 2020 census numbers, because of Trump’s interference, probably allowed 2 blue-leaning states with overcounts - Minnesota and Rhode Island - to keep seats they shouldn’t have, given that they just barely cleared the bar for keeping those seats. Minnesota kept its seat by a scant 26 people, and both states had been expected to lose seats before the bureau announced otherwise. The undercounts in Florida and Texas might well have cost those two red-leaning states seats that they were on the cusp of adding. Texas did gain two other seats, but its 1.9 percent undercount was enough to deprive it of half a million people in apportionment. In pre-census population projections, both states had been on track to gain an additional seat. In 2000, Bush won with 271 electors. 270 are needed to win. The 25 smallest states combined have had 57 Democratic electors and 58 Republican electors. CA has 54 electors Now, states with 3 electors range in population of less than 577,000 to almost a million. Mathematically NOT balanced, fair, equal, or proportional. In 2020 276,765 popular votes were cast in Wyoming (3 electors) 336,000 ish in DC (3 electors) 603,650 popular votes were cast in Montana (3 electors). Each Republican popular vote in Alaska was worth 1.8 times as much per elector as each Republican popular vote in Montana. More than 900,000 more votes were cast in Pennsylvania with 20 electors (6,915,283) than Illinois with 20 electors (6,003,744). Florida (R) with 29 electors (11,067,456) cast almost 3.5 million more votes than New York (D) with 29 electors (7,616,861).

[@8arrows]

@@GrantAugustus1 you’re correct that is why they can’t count every vote from every city or county in a timely fashion. Especially back when they created the electoral college. Which was before roads, cars, planes, phones, computers, even pony express-post offices.

[@asheronwindspear552]

As a non American citizen I see the electoral collage as making some votes are more equal than others... very Orwellian

[@npc9378]

Because at the federal level America is 50 smaller governments working together. The electoral collage is there to safeguard the voices of the smallest of the states. Without it you have 3 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner. Tyranny of the majority.

[@zbagz01]

Welcome to our world....

[@troysierra5228]

States that hold 1/3 the population of one congressional district in another State. Isn't equal representation. It's having a monopoly on the electoral college. Equal representation is having a majority vote, which is the popular vote.

[@verilyveronica8430]

Then 35 states leave as not to be 15 states slaves.

[@troysierra5228]

@@verilyveronica8430 You sound and talk like the southern states that brought slaves. Just leave! How about, you made the problem. Now your prop laws need to be broken.

[@verilyveronica8430]

@@troysierra5228 Actually Blacks sold slaves or there would not have been any.

[@verilyveronica8430]

@@troysierra5228 Actually we leave we are the country btw....

[@marielynn3802]

Yes! National popular vote please!

[@jockyoung4491]

Debating the Electoral College is interesting, but we are stuck with it and it isn't the real problem.

[@BSU55]

Deranged Lunatics believing anything that Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson says, is the real problem. I agree 💯% !!

[@oldgulph707]

Of COUSE the current system is a real problem. January 6, 2021 ! Trump called for the termination of the Constitution because of his 2020 election loss. “The Constitution is hanging by a thread . . . The funny thing is, I always thought it would be the other guys. And it’s my side. That just rips at my heart: that we would be the people who would surrender the Constitution in order to win an election. That just blows my mind.”- Former Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R) He called a failed Republican proposal that would have allowed the legislature to overturn election results in his state akin to “fascism.” “The legislature, after the election, could dismiss the election.” Trump promises pardons AND government apology to insurrectionists if re-elected “ . . . the mechanics of the Electoral College allowed the defeated president to incite his followers into mounting the first attempt in U.S. history to seize the presidency by violence. Far from preventing them, the anti-majoritarian mechanisms of presidential elections were the crucial culprit in creating the “tumult and disorder” and the “heats and ferments” that so worried the authors of the Constitution.”- David Frum, 2/15/21 “Trump and his supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.” “. . . to this very day the former president, his allies and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024 - if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican Party presidential candidate were to lose that election - that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election.” - Judge Luttig His Republican credentials are impeccable, and his warning about the former president and his supporters is unequivocal. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual (especially battleground) state vote totals, is much more robust against “pure insanity,” deception, manipulation, and recently, crimes and violence. Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . . Before anti-democracy Republicans, and new voter suppression and election subversion laws, based on the Big Lie/Big Grift, the system with 2020 election laws meant that the winning 2024 presidential candidate could need a national popular vote win of 5 percentage points or more in order to squeak out an Electoral College victory. The 2024 presidential race could be reduced to less than 20% of the US, in 4 - 6 remaining competitive battleground states, with as few as 43 electoral votes, where virtually all attention will be focused - Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. If as few as 11,000 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 12,000 in Georgia (16), and 22,000 in Wisconsin (10) had not voted for Biden, or partisan officials did not certify the actual counts -- Trump would have won despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress, with only 1 vote per state, would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country. In 2016, 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. States with 270+ Electoral College votes are agreeing to award them to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply changing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law. All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

[@oldgulph707]

@aarqa - State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

[@BBailey-g4m]

It may have been a good idea at the time, but times change. They did there best in creating it, but for Christ’s sake, get a grip and making the changes. Future generations are crying out for change

[@BaalsMistress]

It wasn't even a good idea at the time. Ironically, it was put in place because the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy and placed the Electoral College there to overrule the popular vote in the event they ever elected a populist demagogue. And, in the end, it overruled the popular vote to place in power the very type of person it was designed to be a guardrail against.

[@oldgulph707]

State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill. The bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws. 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. The bill changes state 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 are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law. All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

[@BBailey-g4m]

@@BaalsMistress tell me. You know that, EVERYONE knows it, why have the politicians who have no morals, no integrity and no honor, why have they don’t changed it? Money, control, greed. American politics and voting system has become a joke. I don’t this lightly. But after observing the biggest grifter absolutely destroy standards that’s what I believe.

[@BBailey-g4m]

@@oldgulph707 look you can go through all the bits and pieces. BUT, if something ain’t right or working, such as the American gun laws to prevent the future killing of children, IT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED WHOLESALE. Example, you will never have a cohesive approach to gun laws! Why? Because each state is allowed to make up there own rules. Illinois has banned certain weapons, yet the surrounding states have not. Hahaha. A joke. Nothing of importance can be made law, because each state is allowed to be different. Crazy. Absolutely mad.

[@christopherdaffron8115]

In the entire history of Presidential elections in the US, there were only five elections where the candidate with the highest popular vote actually loss the election due to the electoral college. I say it's a safe bet to get rid of the electoral college and simply use the national popular vote decide which candidate wins the Presidential election.

[@Ian64]

This guy’s arguments aren’t very good. He talks about there being no national standard, yet every single example he gives of states one-upping each other is literally impossible because there is literally a constitutional amendment setting the minimum voting age to 18, and the “dogs voting” is just ridiculous because the word “persons” is used to basically define citizenship and voting

[@Illithien]

There being no national standard would be fixed by the federal rules/laws governing said national election of the President, which would define who is eligible to vote and how/when a recount is to be done. Just like the election laws each state has for their state elections. So, it is not a weak argument, but a non-argument.

[@Laura-LaFauve]

Hear, hear!

[@jb888888888]

Um Actually the Constitutional Amendment only says that nobody 18 or older shall be denied the vote based on their age. As it stands now, legally speaking any state could lower the voting age to 16 or 10 or anything else as long as it's no more than 18. In some states you can vote at age 17 provided that you will turn 18 by General Election day. One reason for the amendment in the first place was that Georgia and some other states decided to make their voting age 18 and other states where the minimum voting age was 21 complained that it was infringing on their "states rights."

[@ramonareinhold8424]

Domocracy is ONE MEN, ONE VOTE. Period Electroral collage can be easily corrupted by a corrupt president, as Trump has proven..

[@freetochoose6421]

Yes to national popular vote.

[@warrenwalker8170]

one person one vote OR IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY

[@lazersly]

The electoral college has got to go.

[@oldgulph707]

We can fix it. The National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws. 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. The bill changes state 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 are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law. All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

[@petertoyyeesr3376]

It's time to go with the popular vote any we're in a American if you be a governor city council members be on school members or Sheff the popular vote WIN congress and sector of USA ❓️❓️❓️❓️❓️‼️‼️‼️

[@oldgulph707]

States with 270+ Electoral College votes are agreeing to award them to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply changing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law. All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

[@petertoyyeesr3376]

If you have a national election for president And the person that loses gets the popular vote by Millions of votes And still loser it's time to change That's s not the will of the people it's the losing candidate wins by 3 or 4 million votes Popular vote and the other person wins by electric college It's out of date And not the will of the people❓️‼️

[@oldgulph707]

@@petertoyyeesr3376 - State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill to guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC wins the presidency. Every vote in every state would matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total.

[@jkennedy8392]

Get rid of the E C

[@Carl_Grissom_Sr]

If it works for your party choice you love it, and if it doesn’t, you don’t. Pretty simple

[@christina2975]

If my estimations are correct, your party has been put in power twice in the last two decades by it alone

[@mvvpro8688]

Other democracies have sensible gun laws instead of an electoral college. Priorities.

[@haydotherapper5401]

Popular vote should be the way we do it

[@jerometaperman7102]

I think that the problem is not with the electoral college itself but in the way it is applied by the states. The "winner takes all" approach screws the whole thing up. I would like to see an amendment to the constitution that would require states to distribute their electoral votes proportionally. That would still preserve the intent of the founding fathers to give the small states a bigger share of representation, which is why they wanted each state to have two senators. In fact, the number of electoral votes each state gets is tied to the number of members of congress from that state. The other thing that bothers me is that I don't see the need for actual electors. Just assign the electoral votes without getting any middlemen in there. That would eliminate the rare but present possibility of faithless electors.

[@lynnjudd9036]

Great idea to just assign the electoral votes in each to the popular vote winner and eliminate the electors. That would remove one HUGE potential for a candidate like Trump to be able to manipulate the results.

[@bobbun9630]

The other thing that needs to happen is expansion of the House. The population of the country as a whole has tripled and the population disparity between states has increased significantly since the House was last expanded over a century ago. Increasing the size of the House would bring the electoral college closer to the expected outcome of a popular vote in most scenarios, especially when applied along with your proportional allocation scheme.

[@oldgulph707]

A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population. 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." 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. 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. 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 not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while 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.

[@RaymondHng]

@@bobbun9630 The population of the United States is immensely larger than the other English-speaking countries. The number of people represented in each district/constituency/riding is also larger. Even in the state of California, the number of people in each assembly district is larger. *Population Legislative Seats Representation* USA 328,239,523 435 754,574 California 39,185,605 80 (Assembly) 489,820 Australia 25,774,400 151 170,691 Canada 37,971,020 338 112,340 UK 67,886,004 650 104,440 New Zealand 5,009,470 120 41,746 In contrast to more populous countries: *Population Legislative Seats Representation* India 1,352,642,280 543 2,491,054 China 1,410,539,758 2980 473,335 Increasing the number of congressional seats will bring the electoral college closer to the expected outcome of the popular vote, but it will also increase the cost of government. There will be increased salaries for the additional representatives and their staff at the capital and at the local office plus increased office and equipment expense at the capital and the local office.

[@bobbun9630]

@@RaymondHng Comparing the countries on your list, I see only India being worse than the U.S. in terms of the number of people each representative represents. Two things are worth keeping in mind with that, though: First, India doesn't choose the head of their government via an electoral college system. So it's not strictly comparable in terms of the problems that would be addressed. Perhaps more importantly, though... Just because India does something a certain way doesn't mean India is an example to be followed. India is, in fact, the biggest outlier, which isn't a recommendation. As for China... Well, we might as well not go there, as we would first have to have a long discussion on what representation means in a body that may superficially resemble Congress but exists in a country most Americans consider unacceptably authoritarian. As for cost... Yes, expanding Congress would make Congress more expensive. But it's also important to consider how much more expensive and does the cost justify the expense. Despite the fact that congressmen spend far too much time campaigning and not enough doing their jobs on behalf of the people they're supposed to represent, congressional operations are still a very small part of the budget, and would likely remain so even with an expanded House. On the flip side, would we really pay not a penny more for more people to have actually had an opportunity to have met and spoken to their congressman? Not a penny more for a better chance at electing a president who represents a consensus rather than one who rejects consensus in favor of pandering to a minority view and exploiting disproportionality in our electoral system?

[@nito-u6k]

There should be a Federal Electoral Committee apolitical with all the provisions that guarantees the results.

[@harryjove6725]

Each state should have a representation, agreed upon when drafting the constitution.

[@oldgulph707]

States with 270+ Electoral College votes are agreeing to award them to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply changing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law. All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. The Founders did not intend that women, black people, and native Americans vote. Most of the Founders intended that only in some states white men with significant money could vote for president. Prior to arriving at the eventual wording of section 1 of Article II, the Constitutional Convention specifically voted against a number of different methods for selecting the President, including ● having state legislatures choose the President, ● having governors choose the President, and ● a national popular vote. After these (and other) methods were debated and rejected, the Constitutional Convention decided to leave the entire matter to the states. The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as all states now do). Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would. Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 38+ states and voters have been completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states have been politically irrelevant. Policies important to the citizens of the 38 non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing. “Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions. The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in 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, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election. In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, 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. The current statewide winner-take-all law for awarding electoral votes used in 48 states, is not anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1880s after the states adopted it, one-by-one. The Founders had been dead for decades The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes. States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. 38+ states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, have been politically irrelevant in presidential elections. The National Popular Vote bill is 72% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country, by changing state 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. All votes in the country would matter and count equally in presidential elections.

[@Kiki-en9vm]

Honestly, electoral volleyed need to go,it doesn't pass by this age.

[@vintagegallerina]

Everything about the Constitution needs updating. Period.

[@Simo-nk1oq]

Emigrate.

[@r00kr0LL4u]

TRE45ON wanted to get rid of the constitution. he said so recently

[@brandon3525]

exactly... we need to rewrite the constitution so it fits the democrat narrative. lefters like to change the rules so they can win all the time. my kids used to try this.

[@ineedyourvalidation8295]

Move to Africa...👈

[@ineedyourvalidation8295]

BIDEN BUSTED !!!...👈😂... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!...👈🤣

[@timlinator]

US Attorney General should be elected to a four year term during the midterm elections.

[@Nigglebaun]

The electoral college is antiquated and needs to be removed. 1 person 1 vote.

[@idcltd8740]

Make voting compulsory for all citizens!

[@waltzguy14151]

GET RID OF IT

[@dangonzalez1232]

As in most countries, it's the will of the people. And NO political party makes the rules, they must follow those rules.

[@Wherever-9]

Thank you. We do need a uniform system that's is the same in all states. Yes in my opinion just go by the popular vote & do away with the electoral college BS.

[@oldgulph707]

The only way to achieve totally uniform national rules governing 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 elections is not seen as a politically realistic possibility “there is no constitutional problem with a state using other states’ voting tallies, even if the states have different voting rules and ballot forms. As long as each state treats people within its own borders equally, there is no equal-protection issue” - Vikram D. Amar There is nothing incompatible between differences in state election laws and the concept of a national popular vote for President. That was certainly the mainstream view when the U.S. House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment in 1969 for a national popular vote by a 338-70 margin. That amendment retained state control over elections. The 1969 amendment was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, then-Senator Bob Dole, and then-Senator Walter Mondale. The American Bar Association also endorsed the proposed 1969 amendment. The proposed 1969 constitutional amendment provided that the popular-vote count from each state would be added up to obtain the nationwide total for each candidate. The National Popular Vote compact does the same. Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are co-mingled and simply added together, irrespective of the fact that the electoral-vote outcome from each state was affected by differences in state policies, including voter registration, ex-felon voting, hours of voting, amount and nature of advance voting, and voter identification requirements. Federal law requires that each state certify its popular vote count to the federal government (section 6 of Title 3 of the United States Code). Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote compact, all of the people of the United States are impacted by the different election policies of the states. Everyone in the United States is affected by the division of electoral votes generated by each state. The procedures governing presidential elections in a closely divided battleground state (e.g., Florida and Ohio) can affect, and indeed have affected, the ultimate outcome of national elections. For example, the 2000 Certificate of Ascertainment (required by federal law) from the state of Florida reported 2,912,790 popular votes for George W. Bush and 2,912,253 popular vote for Al Gore, and also reported 25 electoral votes for George W. Bush and 0 electoral votes for Al Gore. That 25-0 division of the electoral votes from Florida determined the outcome of the national election just as a particular division of the popular vote from a particular state might decisively affect the national outcome in some future election under the National Popular Vote compact. The 1969 constitutional amendment, endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, then-Senator Bob Dole, and then-Senator Walter Mondale, and The American Bar Association and, more importantly, the current system also accepts the differences among states.

[@dr.killmoretreeratologist8848]

The Electoral College should have been eliminated DECADES ago! True Democracy means 1 person - 1 vote. The EC HAS to GO!

[@oldgulph707]

@Somey - The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. would continue to represent us. All voters in the biggest states do not vote for the same presidential candidate. With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 38 smaller states. 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! But, the political reality is that the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter. Under a national popular vote, the margin of your loss within a state matters as much as the size of your win. In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally: * Texas (62% R), 1,691,267 * New York (59% D), 1,192,436 * Georgia (58% R), 544,634 * North Carolina (56% R), 426,778 * California (55% D), 1,023,560 * Illinois (55% D), 513,342 * New Jersey (53% D), 211,826 To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 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). Smart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running. Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now. Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 4 of them. Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.

[@tejanoj3017]

If honor is in question, improve or get rid of the electoral college.

[@oldgulph707]

State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill to guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC wins the Electoral College and the presidency. Every vote in every state would matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total.

[@ronkirk5099]

Only a few more states need to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to make the electoral college irrelevant. I vote in Florida which is mostly a red state so my Democrat vote for the president never counts toward the election of the president. If your state isn't currently a member of the compact, urge your state representatives to introduce legislation joining the compact so it can be voted on.

[@philthai99]

The US needs new Voting Rights legislation.

[@philthai99]

Yes. The US needs new Votings Rights legislation in every state. The MAGA GOP KKK domestic terrorists just wants White Supremacists to vote.

[@cannongavinjr7166]

Get rid of the Electoral College and the filibuster, from the current voting age 271 votes should've never trumped the peoples total number!

[@deborahfreedman333]

Get rid of the Senate. And have House districts and state legislative districts drawn by impartial AI. Move from FPTP elections, to RCV.

[@orionoutdoorsandworkshop5617]

popular vote only!

[@sumiland6445]

I live in Oklahoma. There will NEVER be another party elected now that all the Republicans filled ALL offices that weren't already held by a GOP in the last election. They already have passed a law that the State Legislature can appoint new electors.

[@oldgulph707]

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law. All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

[@8arrows]

Same in Texas. Every major office is Republican. That is how I know they rig it. Not one Democrat at in holding major offices. Statistically impossible.

[@8arrows]

If every Indian tribe in Oklahoma didn’t have extreme voter suppression. Oklahoma would be a different kind of “red” state. I’m from Oklahoma originally. My dad is Pawnee. My mom is a third Creek Indian.

[@sumiland6445]

@@somey9685 not everyone can do that. We have become a fascist state. Illegal to record any law enforcement activity. Iegal to drive through protestors if you feel your life is in danger. No IVF, tubal ligations, no abortions. State Task Force monitors all pregnant women, asking OB/GYNs to give patient records for all their patients. Redistricting concentrated GOPs to allow for only GOPs to be elected. Taking land away from native peoples and selling it to private companies. Stopped public covid testing in March 2021. Barred local news from reporting daily covid stats. Allowed nursing students to work as nurses because so many nurses got sick and many died as well as doctors died from covid. Closed rural hospitals. Allowed ANY government employee to get a teacher license and teach at any school in the state because so many teachers died, got sick and many quit when our governor required all schools to have in-person classes and NO covid prevention funding. Now millions of dollars of covid relief money is missing and our government shut down the audit. There was no eviction protection, no rent or mortgage covid relief money was distributed. Our state is stunned. STUNNED. Oil drilling is on steroids, everywhere they can drill for oil, there's a drilling rig. We're injecting oil well waste water under the arbuckle layer into the crystalline layer of our planet's crust. Not just our oil waste water, but also Kansas and other states because it's illegal to inject oil waste water in their states!! Our "pipelines" are bring oil waste water to Oklahoma to be injected here! This does NOT give any benefit for Oklahomans. Not even jobs!! They bring their workers from all over the world to run all these projects. There are houses that go unsold and unrented after tenants were forced to move. So maybe they were lucky enough to move to a wonderful state like California.

[@sumiland6445]

@@8arrows nice to meet you 🙂 I'm chickasaw. Yes, I agree that the tribal leaders go along with the state far too much. I want to scream sometimes.

[@drumpfisidiot5021]

Once upon a time yes, the electoral college had its place and necessarily so. Unfortunately it has outgrown its relevance.

[@John-eg2ct]

At least as big of an issue is Senate representation. Wyoming, with a population near 600,000 gets 2 Senators, so does California which has 39 million people. The founding fathers came up with a pretty effective system for the circumstances at the time, but the circumstances have changed greatly.

[@sab3295]

Get rid of the electoral college!! 2023! We have the internet! And yeah... I live in MA! My vote doesn't count!

[@user9b2]

Maybe back when the country was new yes but in 2023, no is should be scrapped.

[@silverdamsen2680]

It is useful that there is talk about ending the nightmare that is the electoral college, but sort of strange that the Supreme Court case Moore v Harper wasn't brought into this. If the Supreme Court stays on their current track, they will rule in favor of state legislature doing whatever they want for federal elections, which would be the formal end of democracy in the US when this ruling is announced this summer.

[@matbuchanan9765]

You should get rid of the Electoral College and you'd never see another GOP president.

[@eternalskeptic]

The Electoral College has allowed rule by a minority over the majority for too long. It was established to ensure the power of slave states before the Civil War, and has stripped the voting power of every citizen living in states with large populations. The voting power of one citizen in South Dakota is about 40 times that of one citizen in California. It's just not right.

[@oldgulph707]

@Somey Now, and with the National Popular Vote bill, states have 3 - 54 electors. Incorrect 2020 census numbers, because of Trump’s interference, probably allowed 2 blue-leaning states with overcounts - Minnesota and Rhode Island - to keep seats they shouldn’t have, given that they just barely cleared the bar for keeping those seats. Minnesota kept its seat by a scant 26 people, and both states had been expected to lose seats before the bureau announced otherwise. The undercounts in Florida and Texas might well have cost those two red-leaning states seats that they were on the cusp of adding. Texas did gain two other seats, but its 1.9 percent undercount was enough to deprive it of half a million people in apportionment. In pre-census population projections, both states had been on track to gain an additional seat. In 2000, Bush won with 271 electors. 270 are needed to win. The 25 smallest states combined have had 57 Democratic electors and 58 Republican electors. CA has 54 electors Now, states with 3 electors range in population of less than 577,000 to almost a million. Mathematically NOT balanced, fair, equal, or proportional. In 2020 276,765 popular votes were cast in Wyoming (3 electors) 336,000 ish in DC (3 electors) 603,650 popular votes were cast in Montana (3 electors). Each Republican popular vote in Alaska was worth 1.8 times as much per elector as each Republican popular vote in Montana. More than 900,000 more votes were cast in Pennsylvania with 20 electors (6,915,283) than Illinois with 20 electors (6,003,744). Florida (R) with 29 electors (11,067,456) cast almost 3.5 million more votes than New York (D) with 29 electors (7,616,861). Mob rule is defined as “control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.” 33% of GOP support actions of Jan. 6 insurrectionists. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell about Jan 6, 2021 -“It was a violent insurrection with the purpose of trying to prevent peaceful transfer of power. …That’s what it was ” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy - “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters,” “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump.” “ . . . the mechanics of the Electoral College allowed the defeated president to incite his followers into mounting the first attempt in U.S. history to seize the presidency by violence. Far from preventing them, the anti-majoritarian mechanisms of presidential elections were the crucial culprit in creating the “tumult and disorder” and the “heats and ferments” that so worried the authors of the Constitution.”- David Frum, 2/15/21 "In the past, [Republican] party elders, party leaders … exploited the crazies in order to win elections and then largely ignored them after the elections," "What has happened since then is that Trump opened Pandora's box and let them out. He not only let them out, he affirmed them and provoked them. And so now they're running wild and they are legitimatizing these delusions."- Mac Stipanovich, former GOP operative Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) texted to Meadows about the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results: "driving a stake in the heart of the federal republic," “If we substitute the will of states through electors with a vote by congress every 4 years... we have destroyed the electoral college... 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. You should just say what they mean: “The United States should be governed by minority rule.”

[@shannynwells2068]

What are we afraid of without it? Democracy?

[@jimbrew4529]

Republicans are afraid, and rightly so, they'd never win another presidential election.

[@shannynwells2068]

@@jimbrew4529 I agree. I don't think they have won a popular vote since Reagan.

[@4014Thugsy]

There are good arguments on both sides. But at this point something needs to change. Because otherwise we will continue to get candidates like the ex LIAR N THEIF

[@oldgulph707]

What is a good argument for every vote in every state NOT to matter and count equally in presidential elections? What is a good argument for allowing candidates who don't win the most national popular votes to win?

[@CA-tk8yn]

We must get rid of the Electoral College. We have Millions of voters who voice means nothing. It's horrible and not how the fore fathers envisioned this country being. It's unamerican to support this terrible way of electing a President! The rights of a small state do not and never should be above the voices of every American!

[@theparadoxicaltouristtrave9320]

Until trump, I would have defended that the electoral college would keep entirely unfit people out of office.

[@oldgulph707]

Now, the Electoral College would not prevent a candidate winning in states with 270 electoral votes from being elected President of the United States Now 48 states (and DC) have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes to the statewide winner. 2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide. Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The electors have been and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 24,605 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 31 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 29 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. The 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision again upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors). States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors.

[@faithlesshound5621]

Americans aren't equal. They never have been. They don't let everyone vote either: usually there's some push to keep out those who would vote the wrong way. I suspect fewer people vote in the US than in most democracies. It's deliberately made difficult to vote, and more citizens are disqualified than elsewhere.

[@davidwright7193]

One thing having the president elected by popular vote would do is get the US to sort out its incompetent election administration systems. In 2020 it took 2 weeks to determine the winner of a not very close election and well into December to finalise state vote totals. This year the house results took almost until Xmas to sort out. In the UK (the only other major democracy to use FPTP) a general election result will be known within 24 hours of close of polls. That is finalised with all recounts (a regular occurrence with some divisions being recounted 5 or 6 times) completed. Postal votes need to arrive by polling day. In the UK such things as voting machines and counting machines are unheard of votes are sorted and counted by hand. For EU parliamentary elections (larger than the US national elections) which are generally regional list PR allocated by the De Hout method so result analysis is much more complex and time consuming than FPTP and doesn’t start until final tallies are known complete results are known within 72 hours. Last year Northern Ireland counted a national election decided by STV in 5 member divisions inside 4 days by hand. How can California take over a month to count a single house district by FPTP with the assistance of counting machines? Or Arizona take a week to determine a senate race? With mechanised counts?

[@RaymondHng]

The population of the United States is immensely larger than the other English-speaking countries. The number of people represented in each district/constituency/riding is also larger. Even in the state of California, the number of people in each assembly district is larger. In the U.S., the election is not just for the president alone. Also on the ballot are state government elective offices, local elective offices, state propositions, and local propositions leading to ballots that can be 16 pages long. Counting that by hand would be impractical. *Population Legislative Seats Representation* USA 328,239,523 435 754,574 California 39,185,605 80 (Assembly) 489,820 Australia 25,774,400 151 170,691 Canada 37,971,020 338 112,340 UK 67,886,004 650 104,440 New Zealand 5,009,470 120 41,746

[@davidwright7193]

@@RaymondHng None of that matters. Everything you have mentioned is completely irrelevant. First the EU is larger than the US and uses a far more complex electoral system but counts votes in EU parliamentary elections much faster. Secondly the UK regularly combines multiple elections on the same day and all are declared within 72 hours. How? You get one ballot per election you don’t get a stupidly long ballot this simplifies counting because each count becomes independent. This time frame is only delayed by complex procedures such as STV which can often require many rounds of sorting and counting often with fractional ballots I.e. if my first choice vote is candidate A elected on the first round 25% over quota so 0.25 of my vote goes to my second choice, say candidate C. On 4th round C is elected 10% over quota so 1/40th of my vote now goes to my 3rd choice candidate and so on. With 15 candidates for 5 seats this can go on for 20+ rounds. To count or sort 2000 votes (one ward in the UK, one polling division in the US) by hand takes 1-2 hours with 2 people and a table. For the accurate count of a FPTP election including an anti-fraud check to prevent box stuffing takes two count operations and one sort operation. Hence you should be able to do it inside 6 hours. You just scale from there. US elections don’t take 2 months to count because they are complex they take 2 months to count because they are massively under resourced. This is deliberate to suppress and invalidate the votes of the poor, the urban, and those of the non-white population.

[@davidwright7193]

@@RaymondHng All your figures reveal is the massive under representation of California with 40 million voters being represented by 80 members of congress while every other state in your list would give 200-400 representatives to that many people. In the 2019 EU parliamentary elections 198 million votes were cast while in the US presidential election of 2020 158 million votes were cast. The EU results were known faster even in the early voting divisions where polls closed 10pm Thursday but counting didn't start until polls had closed in, I think the Canaries at 10pm local on the Sunday. As far as I am aware the US is the only country in the world to declare results in an election where votes are still being cast.

[@RaymondHng]

@@davidwright7193 The 80 legislative seats in California are _Assembly_ districts which is state government. There are also 40 state senators in state government. California has 52 congressional districts. Congressional district boundaries, assembly district boundaries, and state senate boundaries do not coincide, so one congressional district can be split between two assembly districts and/or two state senate districts. My city and county is split between two congressional districts. It is also split between two Assembly districts, but represented by one state senate district. Ballots are printed by the county elections department, so my county elections department can be printing up to four different election ballots depending on which precinct the voter lives in. Congressional districts can vary very widely in size even though they represent the approximately same number in population. The singular congressional district in Alaska is 571,951 sq mi (1,481,346 sq km). That's way larger then the United Kingdom which is 93,628 sq mi (242,495 sq km). California's 11th congressional district is only 41.51 sq mi (115.23 sq km). Ballot boxes in this district can easily travel by car to the county elections department processing center. There's no efficient train system in Alaska, so ballot boxes have to be flown by regional plane. That is a contributing factor in the delay of getting all the votes counted in Alaska. The United States Constitution gives the states a higher degree of autonomy than the Australian Constitution gives its states. Australia has one independent federal agency in charge of organizing, conducting, and supervising federal Australian elections. The United States has no such equivalent to the Australian Electoral Commission. The organizing, conducting, and supervising of federal and state elections is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State in each of the 50 states. And each state has has separate rules and procedures for conducting elections. One state may count mail-in ballots as they come in. Another state may not count mail-in ballots and provisional ballots until after the polls close on election day.

[@timjohnun4297]

As an Australian I first thought the electoral college was bizarre but after researching how it works I quite like it. An example of how it would work here: a party trying to win government at the moment would write policies that benefit people in the 3 biggest states, on the east coast. That's where most of the population lives. If you live outside of those 3, then good luck, you're gonna get screwed. An electoral college system addresses that and gives a bit more clout to the states that would otherwise be overlooked. It's probably not perfect but hey, don't hate on me, just giving my opinion. Not that I care too much, I don't live there 😉

[@郑颍]

The Electoral College system does not make any sense in Oz as we do not have a presidential system. If we consider electorates the major difference between the seppos and Oz is that our electorates are not decided by corrupt and partisan politicians but by independent panels.

[@RaymondHng]

Though both Australia and the United States are federations, the United States Constitution gives the states more autonomy than the Australian Constitution gives its states. One example is marriage law which is state law in the U.S., but is federal law in Australia. The U.S. does not have a federal equivalent to the Australian Electoral Commission. Also, the 3.6 million people in the five U.S. territories cannot vote for the U.S. president and they have no voting representation in Congress.

[@gnirolnamlerf593]

The biggest problem is that we let states run federal elections. The biggest problem with centralizing the system, however, is that a whole new bureaucracy would have to be set up nationally, and a way to keep it independent from either the Executive or Legislative Branch would have to be devised. Prof. Amar mentions this. The states, presumably, would insist on retaining their own bureaucracy for state and local elections. If we had started out with a national system, we'd be like most countries, where ballots for national elections look the same everywhere and one body reports the results to the public. But we didn't. As Prof. Amar points out, what if some president exerts undue influence on the voting in a specific election? What if one candidate demands a recount of all 158 million votes, instead of ten million votes in a few states? Trump didn't waste his time and money demanding recounts in CA, NY or MA, but he would have if he lost by 400,000 votes nationally and there were no Electoral College. What if six billionaires decide to run for president (unlikely they would decide to run for governor of Kansas or even New York) and one wins with 22% of the popular vote? Ranked voting? Nationally? It has twice taken four days for the election for one House seat in Maine to be decided. It just took three weeks in Alaska. It took weeks in the NYC primary in 2021. Imagine the challenges the computer programs would face from a candidate like Trump if he didn't win, when, in the end, there has to be one computer program that would give you the final totals, eliminating one candidate at a time. He'd insist that 158 million ballots be counted by hand. Prof. Amar, to his credit, acknowledges that it is possible to come up with an even worse system than the Electoral College if we're not careful. Unfortunately, even the state compact to award electoral votes based on the national popular vote total has not achieved enough support. Those state laws would be challenged in the courts by candidates demanding that each state's vote be counted separately. It's hard to imagine a purple state's Republican governor certifying Democratic electors (or vice versa) when the people of his/her state voted for the other party...and it's not like we wouldn't know that. We'd still know what the vote was down to the precinct level. We need a constitutional amendment, but you couldn't get one of those to make July 4th a national holiday in the Constitution these days. If I were proposing one, recognizing that the small states aren't going to want to give up their Electoral College power, I would: 1) keep electoral votes but scrap the actual electors. That would eliminate "rogue electors," not listening to the voters of their states and instead voting for whomever they want, or competing slates of electors. Just deal with numbers. 2) allot electoral votes by state proportionally according to the popular vote, not winner take all, not congressional district by congressional district. This would better represent the will of the people of each state. Now, if X wins a state with 47.3% of the popular vote, he/she still gets 100% of the electoral vote. In addition, third party candidates would get their due in the electoral vote totals. 3) reduce the threshold for winning to 40% or 45% of the electoral votes, since some electoral votes would be going to third-party candidates. With that proportional system, the EV in 2012 would have been: Obama: 272.241; Romney: 256.141; Others: 9.619 In 2016: Clinton: 256.184; Trump: 249.824; Others: 31.992 In 2020: Biden: 273.272; Trump: 254.505; Others: 10.223 These totals reflect much more closely the popular vote compared to what we do now. But this _would_ require a constitutional amendment. Overall in our history, since we started voting directly for presidential electors in the first half of the 19th century, the electoral votes almost always inflated the win of the popular vote winner. More recently that has meant we could see how much of the country the winning candidate won on the red/blue map. "Look how much of the country is red/blue! That's the candidate who won!" This gave the winner a greater mandate. Now, however, there seems to be just as good a chance that the Electoral College will give the popular vote loser the seat in the Oval Office, where he/she doesn't belong. Nothing will change while citizens think the temporary price of eggs is more important in the long run than the perfection of our democracy. Imagine if the people of Ukraine thought that way. They would have long since given in to Putin to get cheaper eggs, wouldn't they?

[@alejohernandez75]

A 2022 poll found that if the US was invaded a large majority of Democrats would flee country rather than fight. A large majority if republicans and a majority of Independence would stay and fight. The findings are not surprising. Liberals are a bunch of lazy selfish cowards who hate America and the US Constitution.

[@oldgulph707]

The National Popular Vote bill would NOT centralize the system. It would NOT create a whole new bureaucracy. The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election. States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law. When a voter casts a vote for a party’s presidential and vice-presidential slate on Election Day (the Tuesday after the first Monday in November), that vote is deemed to be a vote for all of that party’s candidates for presidential elector. Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the number of votes cast for each. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote bill, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" by six days before the Electoral College meets. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in 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, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes. Under statewide “winner-take-all” laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed in the Constitution, now used in 48 states, the presidential-elector candidates who receive the most popular votes statewide are elected. In district winner states -- Maine (changed their law in 1969) and Nebraska (changed their law in 1992) - the candidate for the position of presidential elector who wins the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote). In states enacting the National Popular Vote bill, when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes-270 of 538, all of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC). Non-enacting states would award their electors however they want. Continuing with district or statewide winner-take-all, or enacting some other law. Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President. The electoral votes from all 50 states are and would be co-mingled and simply added together. The Electoral College will continue to elect the President. All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

[@oldgulph707]

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 Monday 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.

[@oldgulph707]

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions. Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office. The small states do not share a political tendency. In the 25 smallest states the Democratic and Republican popular vote and electoral vote have almost tied In 2008 - 9.9 million versus 9.8 million, as was the electoral vote 57 versus 58. In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined. The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states. In the 13 smallest states the Democratic and Republican popular votes and 59 electoral votes have almost tied. Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012. Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most. Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . . Only 9 states (and 2 congressional districts) with 109 electoral votes and less than 21% of the US population and less than 23% of total 2020 presidential votes, could be competitive and wooed in 2024. Iowa, Florida, and Ohio will join the politically irrelevant states. No more wildly outsized attention, power, and influence. The Electoral College would have 211 Democratic and 218 Republican predictable votes. In 2024, the presidential race may have only 4 competitive states -- Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona as true battlegrounds, where all the focus of campaigns would be, with less than 20% of US population and 43 electoral votes -- would begin with Democrats favored to win 260 Electoral College votes and Republicans 235.- CNN, 11/22/22 38+ states and 70% of all Americans have been irrelevant in presidential elections. 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. Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states. Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important. The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years. Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions. Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states. The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican. In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined, This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic. When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states. Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . . Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said "The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president," “The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them. Mitt Romney said at a fund-raising dinner in Boca Raton, Florida in 2012: “All the money will be spent in 10 states, and this is one of them.” 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. With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election. 12 states had 96% of the general-election campaign events (204 of 212) by the major-party presidential and vice-presidential candidates during the 2020 presidential campaign (Aug 28 to Nov 3). All of the 212 events were in just 17 states. 33 states and DC did not have any general-election campaign events at all. Pennsylvania got 47 general-election campaign events -- the most of any state and 22% of the total. Florida got 31 events -- 15% of the total. Together, Pennsylvania and Florida got 3/8 of the entire presidential campaign attention. In the 2016 general election campaign Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio). Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population). In 2016, Karl Rove advised Trump - “Look, you’re welcome to try and win [a state you can’t win], but every day you spend trying to win a state you can’t win is a day that a presidential candidate forfeits winning in a state like, in your case, Pennsylvania or Michigan or Wisconsin or Iowa.” “You’ve got to-we had to focus on 270 and that meant that every day that we spent outside those states was a day that was wasted, unless we had either fundraising necessities or a national message that we needed to...” “Every day is vital, and we put all of our time and all of our energy and all of our resources into our battleground-state effort.” In the 2012 general election campaign 38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads. More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states. Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). In the 2008 campaign, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. 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. Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states. Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . . Issues of importance to 38+ non-battleground states have been of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually. In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.” Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009: “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.” Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager in 2016, said, “When I took over as campaign manager in 2016, we did zero-let me repeat the number-zero national polls.” When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

[@oldgulph707]

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. 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 not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while 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.

[@carolynknott2054]

Are you kidding? The electoral college. This is about 5 years too late

[@mitziewheeler8517]

So why can't we vote for the AG and other positions as well.

[@herOhface]

This guys book shelves make me anxious.. wait.. reminds me of my own office

[@jimlarry9636]

electoral college was designed to safeguard against undue influence by small groups and to ensure that states with larger populations did not overpower or overshadow states with smaller populations.

[@oldgulph707]

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. With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 38 smaller states. 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! But, the political reality is that the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. 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. 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. 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 national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836. After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College." 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). If the 2022 Election Were a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by 2.8 percentage points, 3 million votes.

[@zbagz01]

Jim -. The problem of large states vs. small states was addressed by creating the Senate and the 3/5 compromise. The electoral college was created because the founders wanted some over-riding mechanism to protect this country in case the others (white, male and land-owning) were swayed to vote for some kind of charlatan or populist. They were really afraid this could happen. The idea that the electoral college was created to protect the "small states" is a myth.

[@davedon260]

Electoral College should have been abolished a long time ago. That’s the root of racism and segregation in the USA. General elections should be based on the candidate that gets the most votes.

[@oldgulph707]

State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

[@rebeccabrown6785]

The electoral college needs to go. Each and every American should be able to have their vote count equally. This would also eliminate the crazy gerrymandering and cause those elected to actually work for the people. Republicans say they would never win another election if we got rid of the electoral college but all they'd need to do is start working on what the people want.

[@PFA...]

It's not valid. Popular vote is the way to go. Good to see this being discussed.

[@nbonasoro]

Every vote should not count equally, every stakeholder group deserves equal weight in making decisions. An example is a high school student government making decisions for a prom. The break up is, let's say, 70% white, 20% Hispanic, 10% black and each individual votes along group lines. Every decision, from what music to play, and what decorations to get may be democratically decided, but only 1 group would have any influence. If there was an electoral college where each group had 1 vote determined by the majority of individuals in that group, then each individual and group in the minority has more influence on the outcome. In the scenario above, where the Hispanic and black individuals have equal votes but no influence the system is unstable and prone to discontent because it incentives inter group conflict. If each group has a vote then the individual members within each group, if they want to make change, must engage in intragroup conflict in order to achieve their goals which is a much more healthy conflict than Intergroup, and inter race, conflict.

[@HankC9174]

the problem is not the EC - its the number of reps in congress . congress should have about 1400 members not 438 .

[@oldgulph707]

Of COURSE it is a problem that every vote in every state does not matter and count equally in presidential elections, AND the candidate with the most votes from all 50 states and DC can lose.