-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.

Mods, why can't I down vote

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



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.


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.


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?

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.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

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.


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.


Whether popular music or

Whether popular music or popular votes, the decision of the majority in many cases is frequently wrong. The dangers of the popular vote formed the basis of our original bicameral republic. Trying to sell this very bad idea on the basis that it currently has broad support means nothing favorable.

"in many cases is frequently wrong" ??

What? What's that even mean?

The only relevant poll/study I've seen is that when younger and younger people are included, the results get more and more free market, laissez faire and libertarian. This worked all the way down to age 5.

Besides, I think we've overcome the issue of "traveling those month long trips to DC to discuss that issue."


mvymvy is a cut-and-paste troll.

Garan's picture

Part of the cut-n-paste problem is..

..is that people keep making the same points and similar comments that have already been made.

I once was deposed for 10 hours by an aggressive prosecuting attorney with no case. He kept asking me (nearly) the same question over and over while accusing me of "parroting" my answer. My response was "The same question gets the same answer".

Maybe that is what mvymvy is doing.

It takes a lot of time responding to people who create redundant comments.

Bad idea...the president is

Bad idea...the president is an office much more powerful than the founding fathers ever intended. Now you want to put the brainwashed masses in charge of electing him or her? This will only lead to a more extreme welfare/warfare state....all with the best intentions to help the poor here at home and to spread democracy worldwide. Terrible idea, the only reform that needs to be made(other than doing away with electronic voting machines) is to change to a proportional distribution from the electoral college as opposed to winner takes all.

Garan's picture

The "brainwashed masses" already elect the president..

They just do it in a way where your vote either counts or doesn't count depending upon which state you happen to be standing in (so to speak).

The power of the president's office is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with as well. Yet, I wouldn't let one problem prevent you from fixing another.

..and yes, we need to do away with winner-takes-all representation, because that is a mis-representation and proportional distribution would be better representation. Also, a populous vote for U.S. president would be more proportional than the current winner-takes-all approach to the electoral college.

Issues with Proportional

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

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

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.