-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".




Comment viewing options

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

Mods, why can't I down vote

Mods, why can't I down vote more than once?

:P

Garan's picture

..because you would have a negative vote count. :)

Actually, I don't think people should vote down people only because of a differing opinion.

That would be mob voting. :)

A good debate presents both sides of an issue well.
It shouldn't be "say something, so I know who to jump on".

I think I'm getting hog piled on this issue.

I just wish people would keep stating the same responses;
making it difficult for others to review what was said.

Who wants to read the same comment over and over again
with the answer being buried below.

i take offense to

' "Both sides" of an issue'. There is almost always more than two (2) sides to every issue.

Garan's picture

Good point.

I guess I got caught up with polarity of opinion this post seems to have generated.

fyi i dont disagree w your post

I just wanted to point out that little tidbit because I think it is an important point. Solutions to every problem are only limited by our imagination. That's what turned me onto Dr Paul when I realized I wasn't on an island and the left vs right mentality is a counterproductive sham. But oversimplified discourse appeals to the tribe mentality which is why it is successful.

"That would be mob voting. :)"

Hmmm. Kinda like the premise of this thread?

Garan's picture

What about all other elections by the people?

You could call any situation where the general population votes and majority wins to be "mob rules".

Was all in fun anyways.

Was all in fun anyways. Question was a joke, at least I commented as I down voted. :)

Garan's picture

At least you were offering humor.

I often laugh before I get a chance to get angry.

How do you down vote more than once? I'm still trying to do that. :)

I've gotta get a bigger mouse or something.

Popular vote helped us so much with our Senators

There are about 100 things that desperately need to be addressed before we haul out this debate.

1) Legalize Money
2) Allow our churches to be politically active again (repeal income tax)
3) End the wars on the middle class.
4) Return appointment of senators to the state legislatures.

A few to start the list....

Garan's picture

National Popular vote is not the same as State Popular vote

I wouldn't use one problem as and excuse not to solve another.
I just bite off what I can chew, and keep eating until it's done.

The effort to have a national popular vote has made at lot of progress.
I think the election of the U.S. president can benefit from not rounding-off votes according to the electoral college.
This is one area where we may first be able to get rid of the winner-takes-all sub-tally; largely doing away with political party gaming the electoral system and ignoring a majority of states.

The electoral college can still be part of the republic structure, and the legislative branch can still be completely appointed.

The only vote that counts, imo, is

Diebold's vote. And Diebold gets what Diebold wants.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4FPuLNjvAc

Has anyone disproven/debunked this yet?

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

So give Diebold some competition

This option essentially does the same thing for almost no cost so counties and even states would not have any negatives. However, it is not gamable or 'owned' by anyone because it's completely transparent at every level.

http://www.dailypaul.com/252505/support-the-rules-change-and...

Can I at least get some intelligent conversation on "why"

people simply dismiss this idea?

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.

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, read the post in it's entirety. 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?

bigmikedude's picture

Any way you try to sell it, this is bad.

Unfortunately there are more D voters that R voters. This has shown true in the last two elections. As far as third party voters, their numbers comparatively, are nil.

See charts: http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-...

By the stats, something like this only serves a purpose for guaranteeing the nauseating nightmare of Democrat presidential control these days, and nothing else.

The sales claim that it would help third parties is hollow. Third parties in this day and age could never compete with democrat voters numbers. Currently, neither could republican voters, which would leave only one possible horrific outcome - more Democrat presidents.

And with Democrat voter numbers being the majority, I wouldn't even consider supporting this.

Besides, we are a republic for a reason. We are not, nor was it intended to be, a pure democracy.

This is not to say that the current electoral college system isn't compromised by spineless party loyal fools afraid to utilize its full potential by voting rogue, but a National Popular Vote is not the magic answer, getting involved in the current system and utilizing it is.

Garan's picture

Structuring government from political weather, is bad.

That kind of reasoning goes along with partisan decisions, which leads the accumulation of nonsensical decisions where the represented population pay the price for a short-term political gain based on the political landscape at a particular point in time.

The decisions from the last two elections are the result of all the faults in the current election system.

People in the minority are less apt to vote when they live in a state that systematically throws away their vote.

Also, just because a state is "Red" or "Blue", doesn't mean the whole state is "Red" or "Blue". Some states may even change their color if the people who never get counted know that their vote will count in a nation popular election for the president.

bigmikedude's picture

This whole bill is "structuring government according to

political weather", because that faction pushing it and attached agenda sees their current advantage. Why do you think it miraculously came up now, at this particular time? And is being presented as 'great for everyone' when by current statistics, it is far from it.

And why on earth would anyone attempt to sell destroying the republic to libertarians of all people?

Somebody deciding to push this here had no clue how important the republic aspect is to libertarians. No libertarian designed this monstrosity.

Certainly republicans, also at a disadvantage at this time wouldn't have conceived it.

That only leaves one group left standing in the stink. The ones that it would benefit right now - Democrats. Especially when they know their dear leader's term limit is up. So why not attempt to change the rules now and utilize the statistics to guarantee another democrat victory when the time comes?

The electoral college is the single tool that gives a powerful voice and opportunity to the minority to protect themselves from the majority mob rule.

The structure that is already in place, was the intended one for a reason - a republic. Why completely eradicate it?

The U.S. Senate and U.S. House protect the minority

One fourth of our population lives in the nation's 31 least populous states and has 62 senators.

Ian Millhiser of Think Progress recently reported: Thanks To Gerrymandering, Democrats Would Need To Win The Popular Vote By Over 7 Percent To Take Back The House
"Democratic House candidates earned 49.15 percent of the popular vote, while Republicans earned only 48.03 percent . . . . Nevertheless, thanks largely to partisan gerrymandering, Republicans have a solid House majority in the incoming 113th Congress."
"Partisan gerrymanders, like the one . . . now all but locks the GOP majority in place" - Jan 2, 2013

Support for NPV is Strong Among Republican and Ind Voters

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls

By state (Electoral College votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

Alaska (3) -- 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters
Arkansas (6) -- 71% (R), 79% (Independents).
California (55) – 61% (R), 74% (I)
Colorado (9) -- 56% (R), 70% (I).
Connecticut (7) -- 67% (R)
Delaware (3) -- 69% (R), 76% (I)
DC (3) -- 48% (R), 74% of (I)
Florida (29) -- 68% (R)
Idaho(4) - 75% (R)
Iowa (6) -- 63% (R)
Kentucky (8) -- 71% (R), 70% (I)
Maine (4) - 70% (R)
Massachusetts (11) -- 54% (R)
Michigan (16) -- 68% (R), 73% (I)
Minnesota (10) -- 69% (R)
Montana (3)- 67% (R)
Mississippi (6) -- 75% (R)
Nebraska (5) -- 70% (R)
Nevada (5) -- 66% (R)
New Hampshire (4) -- 57% (R), 69% (I)
New Mexico (5) -- 64% (R), 68% (I)
New York (29) - 66% (R), 78% Independence, 50% Conservative
North Carolina (15) -- 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), 80% (I)
Ohio (18) -- 65% (R)
Oklahoma (7) -- 75% (R)
Oregon (7) -- 70% (R), 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20) -- 68% (R), 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4) -- 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), 78% (I),
South Carolina (8) -- 64% (R)
South Dakota (3) -- 67% (R)
Tennessee (11) -- 73% (R)
Utah (6) -- 66% (R)
Vermont (3) -- 61% (R)
Virginia (13) -- 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 54% conservative (R)
Washington (12) -- 65% (R)
West Virginia (5) -- 75% (R)
Wisconsin (10) -- 63% (R), 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) –66% (R), 72% (I)
NationalPopularVote

Some Republican Supporters

Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: "I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.

National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."

Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson (R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.

National Popular Vote's National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), and David Durenberger (R–MN) and former congressman John Buchanan (R–AL).

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 NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

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."

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote " http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ include:

Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

James Brulte 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 in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

Republican Votes Would No Longer be Wasted

National Popular Vote bill debuted on February 23, 2006. The National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in all 50 state legislatures. More than 2,110 state legislators have either sponsored the National Popular Vote compact in their state legislatures or cast a recorded vote in favor of it.

Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has 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 (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone 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).

Republicans could take advantage of their wasted votes from the small states under National Popular Vote. Red states are more red than blue states are blue. In a nationwide election, a vote in Idaho or Utah would become as important as a vote in Ohio or Florida.

Specifically, the popular-vote margins in the reliably Republican six small states in 2004 were uniformly overwhelming:
● Alaska–64%,
● Idaho–69%,
● Montana–61%,
● North Dakota–64%,
● South Dakota–61%, and
● Wyoming–70%.

In contrast, the Democrats won three of their small states (Delaware, Hawaii, and Maine) with just 54% of the vote. In addition, the Democrats carried two of their small states (Vermont and Rhode Island) with only 60% of the vote—a margin smaller than the percentage by which the Republicans carried any of their six small states. The District of Columbia (with three electoral votes) is the only small jurisdiction where the Democrats won by an overwhelming margin. The Democrats won the battleground state of New Hampshire by a 2% margin in 2004.

Overall, an enormous number of Republican votes in the small states were wasted because of the overwhelming victory margins in the six reliably Republican small states, compared to the Democrat’s modest victory margins in their states. This can be seen by pairing each of the six Republican states with one of the Democratic states.
● Wyoming’s 96,509-vote Republican margin exceeded Vermont’s 62,911-vote Democratic margin.
● Alaska’s 65,812-vote Republican margin exceeded Delaware’s 28,356-vote Democratic margin.
● North Dakota’s 85,336-vote Republican margin exceeded Hawaii’s 37,209-vote Democratic margin.
● Montana’s 92,110-vote Republican margin exceeded Rhode Island’s 85,753-vote Democratic margin.
● South Dakota’s 83,320-vote Republican margin exceeded Maine’s 65,017-vote Democratic margin.
● Idaho’s 227,334-vote Republican margin exceeded the District of Columbia’s 164,869-vote Democratic margin.

In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (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.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. 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.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since 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. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

Bad Idea, What we really need is real representation in the

House of Representatives. The original intent was to have 1 Representative for every 30,000 people. Now some states have 1 representative for 800,000 or more!

We also need to consider going back to the Senate being chosen by the state legislature, as opposed to being elected by popular vote.

But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

www.dailypaul.com/280083/jesus-christ-vic

Garan's picture

I agree.

With everything you say about the House of Representatives and the Senate.

However, the presidential election is a different beast that is not served well by the electoral college system, which is being gamed by the political parties to the point that most votes do not even matter.

No one here supports mob

No one here supports mob democracy, but limited constitutional republics, if anything at all.

You need to go back to the socialist / marxists forums for this one.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

totally agree with you.

No mob rule!

We are a republic not a democracy. The poster is confused on what he/she is asking for.

Garan's picture

The Mob says: "No Mob Rule!"

This entire post is being "Mobbed". That's funny.

Garan's picture

A popular vote for president is not democracy.

..it's a democratic vote for a 4-year representative to Preside over 1 of 3 branches of government.

Voting every 4 years, 2 years, or even every year, is not a Democracy either. It's still a government of representatives with a legislative branch arrived at through the electoral college (part of the republic structure), and a branch that is completely appointed (the judicial branch).

I'm all for having a republic, it's just that the presidential election is currently effectively determined by a populous vote, and in the case of this national populous vote, the electoral college doesn't work and is being gamed to the point where most votes don't matter.

We would still be a Republic

One more time . . .

Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has 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 (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states. Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote. Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. In 2008, 98% of the campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

Insanity.

Support for a national popular vote is strong

among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

Most American voters want to know, that their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote