-82 votes

"National Popular Vote" Bill Needs Your Support. House Vote Coming Very Soon. Act Now!

[Editors/posters note: Please notice that this only pertains to presidential elections, NOT state elections for senate or anything else.]

Online activism? Easy. Make a difference.

Visit NationalPopularVote.com, enter zip code, and press "Go".

Four out of Five Americans were ignored in 2012 Presidential Election.

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

The "National Popular Vote" bill was just approved by
a House committee, and the bill is expected to come up for a vote on
the House floor very soon.

"National Popular Vote" Bill Is Now at Half-Way Point.

This is the moment when legislators decide which bills to support, so
please tell your State legislators to support the "National
Popular Vote" bill.

Here is a recent video criticizing the Electoral College:
Video Link: The Daily Rundown: Scrap the System?

Here is some background on the Electoral College at: Scholastic.com

Here is a Daily Paul post on the Electoral College: http://www.dailypaul.com/228763/lesson-how-the-electoral-col...

Let's fix this beast. Act now!

Visit NationalPopularVote.com, enter zip code, and press "Go".



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Popular vote is dumb. 90% of

Popular vote is dumb. 90% of people don't know anything about politics or economics. Of the 10% who are interested, 90% of them (and shrinking) have stupid beliefs and are miseducation or idiologically gimped. They believe in lies and impossible things. Why would want dumb/ignorant/misinformed/apathetic people having "more" control over who becomes president?

Electronic voting is dumb. It cannot be made secure. Even if it was possible, its too complex for anyone else to know if its secure or not. Here's my plan: A big transparent plastic bin for each candidate at the caucus. Drop your vote into the correct bin. Then you can see who wins.

When it comes to the general election who cares. The masses can't be trusted to vote for anyone good, so its up to the informed to make certain ONLY decent candidates make it to the general.

Garan's picture

This Isn't About Electronic Voting. Good point, yet...

Comments on electronic voting are attracting additional comments on electronic voting.

Good points, yet I think it is distracting from the thrust of this post, which has hit a nerve with a good number of people.

If you are interested in electronic voting, by all means, read the comments, yet please reply at old or yet-to-be created DailyPaul posts.

See the post below for suggestions and links: "Good point; getting a little off-topic" http://www.dailypaul.com/278960#comment-3013150

Ranked Voting should be considered too

If you want to get into the statistics of how campaigns and publicity can game these, then we need to discuss the possibility of using ranked voting. This is where each person ranks all choices they are willing to accept in the order of their preference. If the votes are counted and their first choice has no chance (e.g. Paul), only then does their second choice get used instead (e.g. Romney). This eliminates the problem of scaring republicans that Obama might win if they voted Paul so they vote Romney to avoid splitting between Paul and Romney.

As one might guess, this requires the vote choices, the ranking and who that 2nd choice followed to be figured out. If more than 2 choices (should be unlimited, really) are allowed, then it would take a computer to calculate the top pick. Fortunately, just like the proposed voting system, this also can be done by everyone to compare accuracy and find manipulation.

I honestly don't understand why people don't want electronic

I honestly don't understand why people don't want electronic voting. Do they really believe the hype that they can't be made secure?

Electronic voting is inevitable. That's a fact with the only question being will it happen next year or next century.

Electronic voting makes the entire process much easier and instantaneous. Just look at the ease with which it's used in other venues and how the results are displayed in real time.

The fears that people have of it being gamed and manipulated are MUCH EASIER to solve than those with paper votes or any other system. This is a fact and it's indisputable. If you don't believe me, just try to give me the original numbers I multiplied when all I gave you was the answer. It can't be done. There are 100% guaranteed ways to overcome every concern while giving every person an equal voice and maintaining both privacy and accountability.

Since it's so much cheaper (virtually free in political terms), it's now a process by which the people could re-assert their voice in numerous other matters. Think of recalls, referendums, petitions, not just elections. Wouldn't the people benefit from a political process where the masses could easily be much more involved?

So if we created a system that was completely transparent and was proven to have all the securities and features desired, why couldn't we simply propose that it be used instead of these half-asked solutions? When our opponents' fears and critiques are all successfully quelled, we will be left with the support of a vast majority of the people because everyone except TPTB want fairer elections.

Lol, sure.

Thanks to electronic voting, you'll never have a reliable recount again. Votes can easily be flipped. Does anyone seriously believe Proposition 37 (to name just one instance) actually lost in California, where they routinely approve this type of referendum? Please.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

The real culprit is not

The real culprit is not electronic voting, it is Australian Style balloting (secret balloting). If we all had a receipt giving proof positive of who we voted for, then oversight is much easier, a recount with RECEIPTS for proof can be used, as well as used as evidence against "stuffing".

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Garan's picture

There are some valid arguments against more populous voting.

Check out the comments from people who oppose this post (below). Lots of them by the way.

Some of the comments offer an explanation; mostly structures of the U.S. "Republic" and resistance to societal whims and mob-rule.

..plenty of counter-points as well. :)

Garan's picture

Good point; getting a little off-topic.

I tend to think there must be a good electronic-voting solution (either existing or yet to be created).

I have a lot say about this, however, that would be a bit of a distraction from this post.

I did a DailyPaul search for electronic voting and commented at the following link, if you are interested: http://www.dailypaul.com/218123/electronic-voting-can-work-b...

Here is another link: http://www.dailypaul.com/250829/electronic-voting-verification

Overall, you will probably have to consider existing anti-electronic voting sentiment as well: http://www.dailypaul.com/80731/electronic-voting-simplified

Otherwise, start a post and get a discussion going.

Must also ban use of electronic

voting machines as well.

Only way this will have any positive effect.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

This bill is a waste of everone's time and needs to die

Real change in the system can only happen after the 17th Amendment is repealed. We have had direct election of Senators by popular vote for near 100 years, to solve the "issue" of the occasional deadlocked state legislature. Notice that this is when a lot of the crap we're up against really took root.

The president is only one person, what about the other 100 that are responsible for passing laws to that president to sign? This bill only distracts from the real issue.

Return real sovereignty to the States in the Senate. Restore this important check & balance so our Constitutional Republic can once again function as it was designed.

=======
RON PAUL 2012

Aaah my favorite subject... the 17th amendment

Here is a link to an article I wrote on the 17th amendment. Been looking into this for 20 or so years. I posted it on the daily paul here a couple of times I think. Happy reading!!

http://www.dailypaul.com/198602/a-magic-bullet-will-be-neede...

The article not only describes the problems with it, it also gives a fool-proof way of getting rid of it. The amendment is not valid due to the following clause in article 5 of the Constitution:

"... and that NO State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its
equal Suffrage in the Senate."

At least 10 states never consented.

Sincerely,

Paul C. Hanson

Garan's picture

Repeal 17th Amendment?

I agree.

And I agree that the president is only one person.

Which is another reason this idea isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be, so long as it is only applied to presidential elections.

However, more would need to be done than repeal the 17th Amendment. There are a lot of contributing factors to why our government makes bad decisions.

Winner take all

The Electoral College system does have a serious
problem - it is fundamentally a sound system but
the problem lies in the way the states apportion
their EC votes.

In 48 states it's done one a winner
take all basis. One state allocates them on the basis
of the statewide popular vote and one by popular
vote in each Congressional District.

Statewide winner take all creates a situation where Republicans
in New York or Democrats in Oklahoma
are ignored by their own parties and the whole
presidential campaign is only really conducted in the few
(10 or 12) states that are not "safe" for one major party
or the other.

So- bad system. Allocating EC slots proportionally OTOH
would put all states in play and be significantly better
for minor parties, But the place to be reforming this
is at the state level.

In states that have the initiative system for getting this
on the ballot, a statewide measure passed in 2014
would put this in place for 2016. Which means time is
already short. Would love to see this happen in my
own state (Oregon).

The fact is, the States don't

The fact is, the States don't have to allocate ANY EC slots per the popular vote. They can pick the guy standing down on the street corner as their choice for president, doesn't have to be someone that was on the ballot, doesn't have to be someone that ANYONE voted for. And this IS the way the system was designed. They popular vote is merely the State Legislature asking the People, "Who would you LIKE for US to elect as president. And they are not committed in ANY WAY to abide in the People's OPINION of such. It is the STATEs that elect the president, not the people.

IF the states were to do something like this, then the People would begin to pay a LOT more attention to who they elected at their State level, and things would begin to work from the bottom up, they way they were originally intended to work.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Garan's picture

Refreshing...

Finally. Someone who doesn't oversimplify this issue; throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Too many people commenting on this post aren't even acknowledging common-ground issues.

Cheers.

Proportioned slots is better, if states are actually willing to implement them.

Unfortunately, whichever party is in power tries to amplify their power by maintaining winner-takes-all.

From what I've seen so far, the "National Popular Vote" effort is the only (structural) solution right now that has legs.

Maybe there is some other ideal, yet I believe this solution is the only doable one that can significantly improve voter representation for the U.S. President.

A state-by-state process of adopting Proportional would fail

One more time . . .

There is a prohibitive political impediment associated with the adoption of the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis by individual states. Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Bill Owens and to reject, by a two-to-one margin, the ballot measure in November 2004 to award Colorado’s electoral votes using the whole-number proportional approach. This inherent defect cannot be remedied unless all 50 states and the District of Columbia were to simultaneously enact the proportional approach. This inherent defect cannot be remedied if, for example, 10, 20, 30, or even 40 states were to enact the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis. If as many as 48 or 49 states allocated their electoral votes proportionally, but just one or two large, closely divided battleground winner-take-all states did not, the state(s) continuing to use the winner-take-all system would immediately become the only state(s) that would matter in presidential politics. Thus, if states were to start adopting the proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining winner-take-all states and thereby decrease the chance that the additional winner-take-all states would adopt the approach. A state-by-state process of adopting the proportional approach would bring itself to a halt.

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

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

If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the presidential election would be thrown into Congress to decide. In 2000 that would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

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

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

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

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

The electoral college is

The electoral college is fine. It's good, it's healthy and it's sound. The only problem is winner take all. If we go to a popular vote than the states will have NO STAKE in the presidential office. That's not what the founders intended. I don't want that and anyone who gives two shits about this country, our freedoms and our constitutional federal republican form of government will OPPOSE this sloppy stupid idea that we need a popular vote to elect the president!

Neither you, nor 'cut 'n past' mvymvy address the concerns that we have about a the population centers dominating the presidential elections.

FACT: BosWash 44 million people

FACT: SanSan 30 million people

FACT: Chicago Metro 10 million people

TOTAL 84 million in these there mega city regions. That is 25% or 1/4 of the US population.

These regions have consistently and overwhelmingly voted for gun grabbing, public health care providing, police state, nanny state, auto bailout, bank bailout cronyism. In a word, they're Marxist cesspools.

Anyone with half a brain can see that a popular presidential vote is going to give an unbreakable power to these megalopolis regions. The campaign plane will jet up and down the mid Atlantic east cost, stop over in Chicago and then go to LA and SF. Rinse and repeat.

Nope folks these guys are selling a bill of goods. Snake oil. This idea is a TOTAL FRAUD.

It is not in line with our founding principles, any concept of federalism or states rights. Instead this is Mobocracy by another name.

In fact this should be on the front page as something we should all be opposing!

Garan's picture

There is no such thing as President of States

This is a matter of words verses actions.

Effectively, we have a President of the Federal Government.

The U.S. "Federal" President does not represent the concerns of the states, he/she deals with the concerns of the Federal government.

Other States should not be able use a 3rd party (the Federal government) to dictate the internal workings of other member states. States are supposed to be sovereign.

I think all the issue you list should not be determined by the Federal government.

Personally, I would rather have no Federal government, than a Federal government that has more power over my state than my state has power over itself.

Unfortunately, the federal government has grown to the point of enacting impositions that govern the states, and that is a perversion of our government system and is a separate issue.

State representatives represent the state.
The Judicial branch represents ideals and fundamentals of our political system.
The U.S. (ahem, Federal) President, represents the concerns of the Federation.

"States are supposed to be

"States are supposed to be sovereign."
The States are sovereign. The Federal Government only has authority in the powers granted under the Constitution under Article 1, and then additionally it has superior authority over United States Citizens as granted in the 14th Amendment. It should be noted that all of the Several States' officials are required to be United States Citizens...ANY statute made by the Federal Government applies to US citizens, and is superior to any conflicting States' statute, as was the very intent of the 14th Amendment's "Civil Rights". If the Federal government says that "the states must..." then the States' officals, as US citizens, are bound to comply with such declarations.

If you are not a US citizen, then the Federal Statutes do not apply to you. You have no "privileges and immunities" of the 14th Amendment citizenship, neither do you have any of the burdens associated with such citizenship...

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Garan's picture

Irony is funny, but are you serious?

I like your posts. Ironic. Funny.
I hope this comment is a joke as well.
It's just so dry that I wonder if you are serious.

Let me see if I understand.

The States are Sovereign.
The Federal government has superior authority over all the state's citizens as well as (by extension) all the people who make up the state's government.
...and the States are Sovereign.

Federal legislators must have been having a drunken joke fest creating that situation.

The legislators rejected the

The legislators rejected the 14th Amendment. It was passed through military coup referred to in history as The Reconstruction Acts whereby military force was used upon 10 states to force passage of the 14th Amendment.

Nothing was repealed by the 14th Amendment. The States are still soveriegn to the extent that nothing was repealed. The States, in the sense of the Legislature of the States, are not sovereign. They are occupied by a foreign invader called the United States. No different than if the United States rode into Mexico and forced passage of law that ALL Mexican Officals must be United States citizens, it would be obvious that Mexico was an occupied nation and under the Authority of the United States. But in doing so the United States allowed the Mexican people the CHOICE to take United States citizenship or to remain as they are, Mexicans.

The same is done with the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was not ratified in accordance with the Constitution, this is well documented. It was ratified by a)military force, b) further ratified by EACH INDIVIDUAL's choice to accept US citizenship. The Supreme court was to hear the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment, but before it could be heard Congress passed legislation that the judiciary cannot rule on political matters of law.

US citizenship is a political choice. It is an example of, "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government".

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

PS, "joke fest"...you have to

PS, "joke fest"...you have to understand that at the time the 14th Amendment was "passed", Karl Marx's ideals were quite popular among many in this country. One of his ideals was the elimination of Nations. At such time the individual States were all considered Nations bound by a treaty called the Constitution of the united States. A similar example we can look at today is another treaty called the European Union, where several nations joined together under one treaty. In time, just as the several Nations we know as states have been made into One Nation, so too will the several nations in Europe soon become One Nation.

This is Marxism. In time these several Nations, under the United Nation, will be eliminated and come under the control of ONE NATION. The elimination of Nationality...Marx.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Garan's picture

Thanks TxRedneck

I like to think people who post on Daily Paul do so with an overall intent to benefit one another, and if they have differences, they have a fair chance to work it out.

My nature is to start with intuition and ideals, then to selectively educate and re-evaluate.
I try not to loose myself through over-exposure to other's way of thinking and maintain a healthy level of ignorance; filling in the details here and there.

It seems that too many people are not interested in helping those around them climb the stairs they've climbed, nor appreciate or try to understand the mental inroads of varied people coming to the perspective of liberty.

So, thanks for offering perspective. I will follow up with some reading so that I am better informed.

That only applies regarding the fed's power over the people

What we're talking about here is how to fairly give the people an equal voice in choosing that federal elected official. (i.e. the president, VP and any national referendums) To give each person an equal voice in this one election, each person needs 1 vote. There's no other way to represent each person equally.

This voting process then should not be intertwined with the states' sovereignty issues at all. Those apply to congressional elections and are done the same way at the state level.

"This voting process then

"This voting process then should not be intertwined with the states' sovereignty issues at all... To give each person an equal voice in this one election"

The destruction of the Republics... Originally NONE of the PEOPLE had the constitutional right to vote in Presidential, or ANY election except those who were granted such by their State. Now, with the invention of the United States citizens, EVERYONE over the age 18 has such right to vote. The State has no say in who can or cannot vote. This was the original design of the Constitution, it is where state sovereignty derives from. Not just electing Senators, but the ability to determine who can choose ANY federal offical. By the original means, it is possible that the States' Legislators could have decided to elect the House, Senate and President THEMSELVES without violating the constitution.

Electors are chosen for the Electoral College SPECIFICALLY to prevent the PEOPLE from electing someone who talks smooth (Obama for instance) but is in truth fundamentally wrong for the country (Obama for instance). The system was NOT DESIGNED for the people to elect the president. In the beginning several states did not even allow the people to cast a vote for their choice for president. As time went on all of them allowed such, but it is ONLY a poll, a "suggestion" from the people on who they would like. It has NEVER been binding on the States, it has ALWAYS been the States' right to choose the Presidential Electors, irregardless of the popular vote.

The voting process IS AT ITS VERY ROOT a State's sovereignty issue.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Garan's picture

Maybe there is a major 3rd element here.

The topic is fresh (or reconsidered) enough for me not to settle completely into what tamckissick says or TxRedneck. The contrast is fairly clear with these past two comments.

I've started with a view closer to tamckissick and am investigating a more historical perspective (which I think is what TxRedneck is offering), yet I wonder if this dissonance exposes an underlying issue:

Slavery.

I wonder if in an effort to abolish slavery at the state level, we've created a situation that effectively creates slavery at the federal/national level. ..a different brand or expression of slavery.

Some questions that come to mind are:

  • Who has the power of slavery
  • Who should have the power/possibility of slavery, assuming it has to exist.
  • How could things be constructed to minimize slavery.
  • Is it possible to eliminate slavery.
  • Finally (and throughout), what is slavery.

Being the initial poster, I've tried to steer comments towards staying on topic, yet here I go; getting off topic. So, I'll have to search through DailyPaul posts and probably create a new post based on this.

If I do, I'll update this comment with a link.

Thanks.

Slavery??? Thousands of

Slavery??? Thousands of years ago in Egypt the people paid 20% of everything they earned to the government, that was called the slavery of Egypt. Today, 40%+ of everything we earn is called "freedom". I guess whether or not you call it slavery depends on who is defining the words...

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Lets see what the founders had to say

"The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society."

-The Federalist Papers, Number 39

You don't know what you're talking about. I don't support your vision of a popularly elected president and I think that all the good citizens of this country who value their freedom or wishes to perpetuate the vision of the Founders will actively oppose that effort.

Garan's picture

Voting Process, Winner-takes-All, & what really happens.

There are several topics in the air here.

Winner-takes all. Bad. We agree. (right?).
Should be fix? Yes.
How? There we don't see eye to eye.

Actually, I don't know how you propose to fix that.
I only see you disagree with the idea that a populous vote for president will get rid of the current effect and gaming of Winner-takes-all determinations at the state level.

The idea that the founders had is great.
However, in practice, the system is gamed by the two major political parties. Winner-takes-all will never disappear as long as one political party dominates each state, which is the case everywhere.
I don't think complaining about the two-party system is going to change anything, something needs to be done.

So far, a national populous vote appears to me to be a good step. Not perfect, but better than what we have.

This can only be implemented if enough states enact it.
Also, those states can withdraw their enactment in the future if they choose. The states would still have that power.

As far as who recent and future presidents serve, their actions make it clear, the Federal government itself. Not the individual states.

The Federal government continually tries to homogenize the states into a single vision. I believe states should and are supposed to have more power and individuality. Nationally homogenized institutions lead to fragility of the entire system in that mistakes and failures effect the entire system, and the evolution of state governments is prevented.

So, it's ideals and design, verses current practice and perversion.

Political / Campaign Reality, Facts, Numbers, Examples

Under the current system, the big cities in battleground states do not receive all the attention—much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly do not receive all the attention when presidential candidates have campaigned in the closely divided battleground states of Ohio and Florida. Moreover, Cleveland and Miami manifestly do not control the statewide outcomes in Ohio and Florida, as evidenced by the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections in those states. The Democrats carried both Cleveland and Miami in 2000 and 2004, but the Republicans carried both states. In fact, Senator John Kerry won the five biggest cities in Ohio in 2004, but he did not win the state.

An indication of the way that a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers (e.g., Ford, Coca-Cola) seek out customers in small, medium-sized, and large towns as well as rural areas in every state. National advertisers do not advertise exclusively in big cities. Instead, they go after every potential customer, regardless of where the customer is located. In particular, national advertisers do not write off a particular state merely because a competitor already has an 8% lead in sales in that state (whereas presidential candidates routinely do this because of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system). Furthermore, a national advertiser with an 8% edge in a particular state does not stop trying to make additional sales because they are already No. 1 in sales in that state (whereas presidential candidates routinely do this under the current system).