-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.

It's time to read some more.

According to the founding fathers, the president is not the president of the American people. He's the president of the board of an outsourced shared services organization engaged by the states. As such, the states are supposed to elect the president, NOT the people. And the states prescribe the methods by which electors are determined.

You can throw a lot of shyte on the wall in your ignorance, but if you don't know history you are bound to be enslaved by it.

States Enacting NPV Prescribe their Method for Awarding Electors

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill IS the states prescribing the methods by which electors are determined.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

The candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the needed 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.

With National Popular Vote, we would continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes BY STATES.

One could argue that, sure,....

...but one could just as easily argue that states that do so are in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the intent and will of the founding fathers. Further, one could argue that it's an abrogation of (small r) republicanism and submission to the inferior system of government called direct democracy.

Founders Did Not Agree On Any Method

If you support the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, then you are 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 80% of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored 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, presidential campaigns spent 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they were not hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and could win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state. 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored. That’s over 85 million voters, 200 million Americans. Once the conventions are over, presidential candidates now don’t visit or spend resources in 80% of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.

With National Popular Vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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."

The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy. Direct 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.

Democracy

sucks.

Garan's picture

Corporatism Sucks.

Socialized/subsidized business sucks.

Uneducated populous sucks as well.

Democracy works at the smallest level.
..just not at the biggest level.

The bigger the government, the more mis-representative, disconnected, and abusive/corrupt it becomes.

Well...

Since we were talking about the bigger form of it that is obviously what I was referring to. Those things you said suck I agree with. Not sure if you thought I didn't. I want what our founders envisioned. A REPUBLIC that recognizes our God given rights with VERY limited power.

President of What?

If the people of the Unified State were to vote directly for its president, she would be President of the Unified State.

By defining and constructing our confederation of sovereign states, the members of this particular garden club are The States themselves, and NOT the people. The Electoral College (and the original Senate) were designed to MINIMIZE the trendy aspects of democracy and to protect minorities from majoritarian tyranny.

National Popular Voting for a President of a Unified State is a bad idea whose time keeps coming back (kind of like the flu). This is a typical IT type of philosophy: "If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is."

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

With the Electoral College

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

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

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

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

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

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 Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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."

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

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 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 Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . 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.

NationalPopularVote

President of the slaves of America

*

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

Garan's picture

President of Federation. Senate and House of States.

The President should have less power, and the House of Representatives and Senate should have more (than the president).
Overall the federal government should be small, small, small.

Those are separate issues from how the president should be elected.

Using the electoral college system for electing the president isn't going to change the role and current abuse of presidential power.

I agree.
"sovereign states", good.
Big centralized government, bad.
Senate representation should be better.

Yet, how the president gets elected, should be a direct vote.
My vote for president should count the same, regardless of which state I happen to work and live in.

Any issues with a president of the U.S.A. being non-representative is an inherent problem with any federal government.

The bigger the government, the less representative it is of it's people.
That is the big problem with Federalization.

However, if we have to have a Federal president, I think a popular vote is better than the regional-rounding-off of vote counts that happens with the electoral college.

What is wrong with having one branch representative of states, one branch by popular vote, and a third branch that is isolated from public whims?

Thumbs

Down

There's no doubt that it's a

There's no doubt that it's a f'ed-up system, the reasons for which are easily found in other posts here on the DP. The point is that it is an irrecoverable, iredeemable system which is working just as it was designed to.

So the solution is not to compound the problems that already exist for people by f'ing up the system for them even further.

The only rational solution is to leave it. You are participating in it voluntarily. You can volunteer. Unregister. Live free of corporate bylaws. Live free with the growing numbers of others who are abandoning the sinking ship of the federal government and forming their own mutually beneficial societies.

Let the beast wither without you voluntary support or servitude.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Terrible Idea

I can not believe that the NPV was posted on the DP in the positive.

This is so bad that it is like saying that we should get rid of the 1st and 2nd amendment.

We should be fighting against this.

There Are Critical Reasons for The Electoral College

Simplistically, the large, massively collectivist population centers would have an absolute lock on every election, leaving sparsely populated states and areas assed-out.

The electoral college is specified in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and those who would remove it are either willful in their chicanery, or utterly ignorant.

Those who founded the Republic knew what they were doing and did this for perfectly, dirt-simple reasons.

Driven by those with a nefarious specific agenda and supported by useful idiots and fucking dumb-asses.

Don't fuck with it...

Now 11 States Can Decide Elections with 23% of Nation's Voters

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!

NPV does Not Remove the Electoral College

The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote 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.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed 270+ ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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."

The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

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, the people had no vote for President in most states, 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 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

A vegan diet does not remove the canines, either

But it ignores their value, rendering them as simple decoration, rather than the life sustaining flesh rippers they are.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

A vegan diet does not remove the canines, either

But it ignores their value, rendering them as simple decoration, rather than the life sustaining flesh rippers they are.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

A vegan diet does not remove the canines, either

But it ignores their value, rendering them as simple decoration, rather than the life sustaining flesh rippers they are.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Still doing cut-and-paste ...

... and evading questions, huh?

Garan's picture

LOL. I still think this is funny.

You have to admit, if this is an arguing tactic, it's a pretty good one.

..basically stone-walling the emotive side of the argument while presenting facts.

However, I think his/her response is so technically consistent and rigid, that it is not an easy read for a blog post.

I'd have to get a little more familiar with some of the terms to fully digest what they are saying.

It would be nice to read something a little more human coming from Mvymvy.

If that is how they really talk, they could probably write a text book on the subject. LOL.

It is dishonest ...

... in a debate format to do nothing more than steal other people's views and post them has his own.

He has offered none of his own words.

He is dishonest. And disrespectful. And a troll.

Garan's picture

I don't think they are a Troll

Trolls usually say things that get people upset.
This person is simply incessant.

It looks to me like their responses are relevant.
If they were a Troll, they would probably give minimal effort while negatively effecting others; thereby draining their victims of energy.

I think this person actually cares about the subject matter and is giving thoughtful replies.
They appear to be getting less down votes than me, so they must be doing something right.

Have you ever met anyone who was amazingly articulate?
Some people actually communicate that way.
Most people are just not used to that.
It can be hard to follow someone who really knows their stuff.
If they are a cut-and-paster, they have me fooled.

This is a State issue.

If you want to change how the States elect their Electoral Board members and/or the "winner-take-all" statutes, you should do so at the State level. The National Popular Vote Act is unconstitutional because the States have the authority. If it is not mentioned in the Constitution, then it is either reserved to the States or the People. Who cares if it is good policy... policy argument at State level, please.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

National Popular Vote IS State Legislation

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

National Popular Vote is "reforming our state-based system of elections through an agreement of the states . . . [It] keeps the stability of our republican form of government by preserving our Electoral College, keeps the checks and balances in place to ensure the protection against so-called mob rule, ensures that voters in every state matter in every election, and keeps the states’ rights intended by the Founders securely intact." - Laura Brod

Rep. 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.

I agree with you but ...

... do you see what they are doing? They are trying to do an end-run around the Constitution.

It is not done in Congress. They have one bill that they are trying to get each legislature to pass.

Of course, any state that passes it can just change back later.

Garan's picture

This is ironic.

They are using the electoral system to have a slight majority of states (actually states electoral votes) determine what a minority of states will do.

They are trying to perform a 51% majority rule of electoral college votes against the remaining states to force a popular vote for the presidency.

They couldn't do that without the electoral college.

However, I am unfamiliar with the constitutionality of this.

I just don't think the electoral college solves the problem it was intended to solve. The problem is inherent with a strong central government. States should be sovereign and only federated where and when they conceded.

(I don't want to pay for states that build cities in flood zones. ..but I digress)

Garan's picture

I just added a note to the post to help clarify.

It appears that too many people are assuming this is about votes for Senate seats, or that this is about completely getting rid of the electoral college.

That's simply not the case. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of negative comments and down-votes because of this, so I hope my note will help clarify.

Here is what I've added to the post:

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

Please try to understand each other before being harsh.
I'll try to do the same.

We KNOW it's not about the Senate ...

... some of us are bringing up the 17th Amendment because it is the SAME argument made by the Progressives when they got that amendment in -- it CENTRALIZES POWER and THAT is the reason statists want it. THEY WANT MORE POWER.

And since the 17th, the states have had MUCH LESS power and the federal government has grown by LEAPS AND BOUNDS.

You never did answer my question about nationalism vs. federalism. I suspect that is either because you are hiding your answer or you do not know the difference.

If you don't know the difference, look it up and then apply those ideas to this bill. If you still think this bill is a good idea, then you are not a defender of liberty. PERIOD.

If you cannot learn from the mistakes of history, then you are not much of a thinker.

P.S. Yes it DOES eliminate the Electoral College, for all practical purposes.