We The People: National Popular Vote!

[Perknose]

More than 2 million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton for President in this last election. If there is one office for which every single voting citizen's vote should count the same, it is the Presidency.

Naysayers always say that the Electoral College gives non-battleground states a voice they wouldn't have. The facts simply don't bear this out:

Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. As shown on the map, two-thirds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were ignored.

State winner-take-all statutes adversely affect governance. “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Many of these same anti-democratic voices also say, well, the Electoral College was instituted to protect the interests of small states against large states. This is also not true:

Some claim that the founding fathers chose the Electoral College over direct election in order to balance the interests of high-population and low-population states. But the deepest political divisions in America have always run not between big and small states, but between the north and the south, and between the coasts and the interior.

So, then, these very same anti-democratic people say, well, we have the Electoral College because of communication distances. This was somewhat true at the beginning, but, even then and by the time of the 12 Amendment in 1803, the real reason was clear: SLAVERY:

Enter the 12th Amendment, which allowed each party to designate one candidate for president and a separate candidate for vice president. The amendment’s modifications of the electoral process transformed the Framers’ framework, enabling future presidential elections to be openly populist and partisan affairs featuring two competing tickets. It is the 12th Amendment’s Electoral College system, not the Philadelphia Framers’, that remains in place today. If the general citizenry’s lack of knowledge had been the real reason for the Electoral College, this problem was largely solved by 1800. So why wasn’t the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point?

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slave holding Virginian occupied the presidency.

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority.As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.

State governors, the executive head of each state, are each elected by popular vote. Shouldn't the executive head of ALL the states also be elected by popular vote?

So, what can WE THE PEOPLE do to get around the outmoded and entirely discredited EC?

It's far more doable than you might think. In fact, it's already 61% there.

THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE COMPACT

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Written Explanation It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). It will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more electoral votes. Most recently, the bill was passed by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, and 37–21 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House. It has passed on house in 12 states with 96 electoral votes (AR, AZ, CO, CT, DE, ME, MI, NC, NM, NV, OK, OR). Status in Each State

This is our country. We, the people, have once again had our collective voice denied by an outmoded system historically steeped in slavery. Regressives have profited from this twice in recent memory. No more. Find the petition, sign the petition, and pressure your state representatives to join the initiative.

This is not Animal Farm, where everyone is equal but some are MORE equal than others.

One man, one vote!

 

[SNC]

More than 2 million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton for President in this last election. If there is one office for which every single voting citizen's vote should count the same, it is the Presidency.

Naysayers always say that the Electoral College gives non-battleground states a voice they wouldn't have. The facts simply don't bear this out:



Many of these same anti-democratic voices also say, well, the Electoral College was instituted to protect the interests of small states against large states. This is also not true:



So, then, these very same anti-democratic people say, well, we have the Electoral College because of communication distances. This was somewhat true at the beginning, but, even then and by the time of the 12 Amendment in 1803, the real reason was clear: SLAVERY:



State governors, the executive head of each state, are each elected by popular vote. Shouldn't the executive head of ALL the states also be elected by popular vote?

So, what can WE THE PEOPLE do to get around the outmoded and entirely discredited EC?

It's far more doable than you might think. In fact, it's already 61% there.

THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE COMPACT



This is our country. We, the people, have once again had our collective voice denied by an outmoded system historically steeped in slavery. Regressives have profited from this twice in recent memory. No more. Find the petition, sign the petition, and pressure your state representatives to join the initiative.

This is not Animal Farm, where everyone is equal but some are MORE equal than others.

One man, one vote!

Ask yourself if you HONESTLY would have posted the same thing if the outcome was reversed? If the answer is no, (remember I said honestly) then what is the motivation for this compact? If we were to get rid of the EC and the next cycle Trump won the popular vote and lost what would have under the old rules, the EC vote, would you then be in favor of reverting back? Stop blaming the EC and look at the DNC and who they put up, and who they forced out. Look to those on the left that stayed home and didn't vote. Look to the past and the 'above the law' attitude that both parties operate under that alienates most honest hardworking people. Look to the times when your candidate could have risen above the pile'o shit and behaved like the leader you felt she is, instead of saying things like; when Donald releases this I'll release that. She lowered herself to the bar that Trump set and paid the price. This 'change the rules because we don't like the outcome' crap just makes the left look like amateurs. A simple matter of getting the left to vote in the same numbers as 08 or 12 wold have had a Clinton in the White House again. How it that the fault of something that has been around since 1845? And if you think about it, how many more Rs would have voted in places like NY, NV, WA, CA and others if they thought for a second their vote would matter? To suggest that the vote totals would be the same is wishful thinking at best.

 

[fskimospy]

Ask yourself if you HONESTLY would have posted the same thing if the outcome was reversed? If the answer is no, (remember I said honestly) then what is the motivation for this compact? If we were to get rid of the EC and the next cycle Trump won the popular vote and lost what would have under the old rules, the EC vote, would you then be in favor of reverting back? Stop blaming the EC and look at the DNC and who they put up, and who they forced out. Look to those on the left that stayed home and didn't vote. Look to the past and the 'above the law' attitude that both parties operate under that alienates most honest hardworking people. Look to the times when your candidate could have risen above the pile'o shit and behaved like the leader you felt she is, instead of saying things like; when Donald releases this I'll release that. She lowered herself to the bar that Trump set and paid the price. This 'change the rules because we don't like the outcome' crap just makes the left look like amateurs. A simple matter of getting the left to vote in the same numbers as 08 or 12 wold have had a Clinton in the White House again. How it that the fault of something that has been around since 1845?

I've been against the electoral college for my whole life regardless of the outcomes of elections. I see no rational reason why we should base the election of the most powerful person on the planet around what about half a dozen arbitrarily located states out of 50 think. We should simply apply the rules that we use for literally every other elected office in the country, which that the winner is the person who the greatest number of people he or she represents votes for. Isn't that simpler and fairer?

And if you think about it, how many more Rs would have voted in places like NY, NV, WA, CA and others if they thought for a second their vote would matter? To suggest that the vote totals would be the same is wishful thinking at best.

The polls for the national vote turned out to be pretty accurate in the end and Clinton generally was polled as winning by larger margins when all registered voters were counted instead of just likely voters. That means her lead through a pure popular vote would probably have been bigger, not smaller.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

No to national popular vote. Yes to mandatory dividing the electorates and get rid of the "winner take all" BS.

A national popular vote should not be put in place. The entire concept of the electoral college was to make sure every state had a say of some sort. So let's say for instance that the entire state of California voted Democrat. It would essentially be a no-contest. Do you think 1-3 states should have the overall say of what occurs across 50 states? Absolutely not.

Also, the popular vote will never happen. The constitutional amendment process would be diabolical. Simply tweaking our current process to ensure everyone has a reason to vote would make much more sense.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The 2M more votes is not a compelling argument because both candidates went into the election aware of the game rules, and campaigned for an electoral rather than popular vote victory.

This is like the losing but favored soccer team claiming victory because they passed the ball better, and wanting to change the game such that the team making the most passes wins. Fundamentally changes the entire game due to the results of an outlier outcome.

There is nothing wrong with the electoral college. This happened to Gore and Clinton because they were both crappy candidates. Obama didn't have this problem. I don't recall a large call for electoral reform over the past eight years.

Next time don't nominate a candidate under FBI investigation or lacking any semblance of charisma.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

No to national popular vote. Yes to mandatory dividing the electorates and get rid of the "winner take all" BS.

A national popular vote should not be put in place. The entire concept of the electoral college was to make sure every state had a say of some sort. So let's say for instance that the entire state of California voted Democrat. It would essentially be a no-contest. Do you think 1-3 states should have the overall say of what occurs across 50 states? Absolutely not.

Also, the popular vote will never happen. The constitutional amendment process would be diabolical. Simply tweaking our current process to ensure everyone has a reason to vote would make much more sense.

This is about where I stand. 48 states are winner take all. 2 are split. The problem I have is how do you make it fair on the split if all of them go that route? If each state continues to set their own rules and thresholds you will have the same mess as, let's face it, both parties jerk the system around to try and get the most out of the votes they know they will get.

 

[fskimospy]

No to national popular vote. Yes to mandatory dividing the electorates and get rid of the "winner take all" BS.

A national popular vote should not be put in place. The entire concept of the electoral college was to make sure every state had a say of some sort. So let's say for instance that the entire state of California voted Democrat. It would essentially be a no-contest. Do you think 1-3 states should have the overall say of what occurs across 50 states? Absolutely not.

First, one entire state voting a single way is a ridiculous idea that would never happen. Second, 1-3 states have that say already. Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania could swing the result of basically any election they wanted which means the vast majority of states have effectively no say now.

On a more basic note though, why doesn't it simply make sense for the person the most people voted for to win? That's how literally every state elects its chief executive and that seems to work fine.

Also, the popular vote will never happen. The constitutional amendment process would be diabolical. Simply tweaking our current process to ensure everyone has a reason to vote would make much more sense.

As the OP shows, a constitutional amendment is not required.

 

[fskimospy]

The 2M more votes is not a compelling argument because both candidates went into the election aware of the game rules, and campaigned for an electoral rather than popular vote victory.

This is like the losing but favored soccer team claiming victory because they passed the ball better, and wanting to change the game such that the team making the most passes wins. Fundamentally changes the entire game due to the results of an outlier outcome.

Of course if you look at the results for registered voters, likely voters, and the actual vote totals Clinton won all of them. It seems unlikely that a change in strategy would have rendered a different outcome.

There is nothing wrong with the electoral college. This happened to Gore and Clinton because they were both crappy candidates. Obama didn't have this problem. I don't recall a large call for electoral reform over the past eight years.

Next time don't nominate a candidate under FBI investigation or lacking any semblance of charisma.

I hope you're not laboring under the delusion that Sanders would have performed better. He was a very weak candidate.

 

[mizzou]

I remember hearing an argument a ways back that only property owners should have the right to vote. There are tons of arguments about how to make the election votes more equatable. For instance, why should my vote count or be the same weight as a child molestors? That #%@%bags vote shouldn't count for anything, and in fact shouldn't count.

I don't see a compelling argument yet about getting rid of the electoral college. I think that in a democracy, majority rules. If 51% of a state votes one way, then 100% of the state moves in the way of the 51%. Maybe if you are a small state or less populous, you can have evenly split electoral votes...but I think it's a good thing to let the majority choose who they want to vote for.

 

[fskimospy]

I remember hearing an argument a ways back that only property owners should have the right to vote. There are tons of arguments about how to make the election votes more equatable. For instance, why should my vote count or be the same weight as a child molestors? That #%@%bags vote shouldn't count for anything, and in fact shouldn't count.

I don't see a compelling argument yet about getting rid of the electoral college. I think that in a democracy, majority rules. If 51% of a state votes one way, then 100% of the state moves in the way of the 51%. Maybe if you are a small state or less populous, you can have evenly split electoral votes...but I think it's a good thing to let the majority choose who they want to vote for.

Let me get this straight. You think the majority should rule but you want to keep a system where the majority literally isn't ruling?

The world is a weird place, haha.

 

[vi edit]

I'll cross post this since there are two threads of similar topic...


I still want to know why it's not reasonable to award electorate votes per state as a percentage of voting. If the vote is split 75/25 then give 75% of the electoral votes for the state to that candidate and the remaining to the other. Rinse and repeat for all 50 states. Then winner overall of electorate tally takes it.

It'd give Democrats in places like Kentucky and Alabama a voice.
Republicans in downstate IL, upper NY, and huge areas of California a voice and more value in voting.
Would help cut down on the nonstop pandering to swing states where literally a couple thousand votes could swing an entire election.
And then ultimately cut down on some of the angst of popular vote vs. not my vote being as important that always happens.
Hell, depending on just how many votes a 3rd party gets, they could be legitimately disruptive by being able to peel away a few votes here and there.

I think as our country continues to polarize into huge urban centers vs. rural the way that electorates work isn't..well...working. I don't think straight up popular vote is the answer. But some revision is required.

 

[Commodus]

The "you wouldn't have brought this up if Clinton had won" argument is likely true, but at the same time... you can say a similar thing about the Trump camp. They want the electoral college to stay in place because, most likely, it will hand their candidate the victory despite losing the popular vote by the largest margin in recent memory. And yes, I suspect these sides would make similar arguments if their positions were reversed.

As was said, it'd be important not to completely sideline the importance of less populous states, but the current system can't hold. You have a handful of moderately-populated states dictating the future for large chunks of the population, and Republicans using gerrymandering and voter ID tactics to rig elections knowing that they only need slight victories in certain areas to take everything.

My call is for a proportionate electoral college system. Not necessarily one-for-one, but if one party wins a significant chunk of a state, it should still have electoral votes headed its way. For example: Austin votes Democrat despite a sea of conservatism around it, and it's one of the most populous cities in Texas. Shouldn't it count for something in the EC system?

 

[buckshot24]

Of course if you look at the results for registered voters, likely voters, and the actual vote totals Clinton won all of them. It seems unlikely that a change in strategy would have rendered a different outcome.



I hope you're not laboring under the delusion that Sanders would have performed better. He was a very weak candidate.

You realize that she actually lost, having more of an irrelevant stat in a contest doesn't mean they "won" something. She lost and she will probably never run again, its over. He won the votes that counted, its over.

Take a look at this.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/gametracker/recap/NCAAF_20161112_PITT@CLEM

Clemson "won" the passing yard contest, they "won" the first down contest, they "won" the time of possession contest. The problem is they lost the game (just like Hillary) and they weren't trying to "win" those other things (like Hillary wasn't trying to win the popular vote) because they are irrelevant to agreed upon rules. She lost, its over, only losers care about irrelevant stats.

 

[fskimospy]

You realize that she actually lost, having more of an irrelevant stat in a contest doesn't mean they "won" something. She lost and she will probably never run again, its over. He won the votes that counted, its over.

Take a look at this.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/gametracker/recap/NCAAF_20161112_PITT@CLEM

Clemson "won" the passing yard contest, they "won" the first down contest, they "won" the time of possession contest. The problem is they lost the game (just like Hillary) and they weren't trying to "win" those other things (like Hillary wasn't trying to win the popular vote) because they are irrelevant to agreed upon rules. She lost, its over, only losers care about irrelevant stats.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here but it doesn't relate to what I wrote.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm all for it and I'm also on the record before the election took place saying we should move to the popular vote.

I'll find that post if needed.

 

[mizzou]

Let me get this straight. You think the majority should rule but you want to keep a system where the majority literally isn't ruling?

The world is a weird place, haha.

In my state, if 51% of the people vote democratic, then 100% of our power/weight should go to the democrats. How is that not majority rule?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Of course if you look at the results for registered voters, likely voters, and the actual vote totals Clinton won all of them. It seems unlikely that a change in strategy would have rendered a different outcome.



I hope you're not laboring under the delusion that Sanders would have performed better. He was a very weak candidate.

Given the mood of the electorate, the states Trump flipped and the members of the Obama coalition that Clinton lost, I absolutely think Sanders could have won

 

[buckshot24]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here but it doesn't relate to what I wrote.

You don't "win" something you weren't competing for. None of the candidates were trying to "win" the popular vote. So you DO have an idea what point I was trying to make if you can say it doesn't relate to what you wrote.

 

[fskimospy]

You don't "win" something you weren't competing for. None of the candidates were trying to "win" the popular vote. So you DO have an idea what point I was trying to make if you can say it doesn't relate to what you wrote.

I strongly suggest you go read what I wrote again because your post is a non-sequitur.

 

[pauldun170]

While I'm not in the camp that is pleased with this election cycle, I'm not in favor of ditching the electoral college.
Standard reasons, states with smaller populations should have proper influence in the federal government.

The issue nowadays is the industry tasked with swaying opinion and impact of political party tactics throughout the years
Whether our system is based on popular vote or EC, the results would be the same. Marketing of political nonsense would adjust to compensate.
At least with the EC, we can at least pretend we care about no mans land. Lot of crap that is important to our country exists in that no mans land.
Even if a lot of those folks who live there are walking stereotypes.

I say this on a forum frequented by some of the most annoying stereotypes.
Stubborn close minded engineers and bros

 

[buckshot24]

I strongly suggest you go read what I wrote again because your post is a non-sequitur.

You claimed Hillary "won" the popular vote, you can't win something you weren't competing for.

 

[fskimospy]

Given the mood of the electorate, the states Trump flipped and the members of the Obama coalition that Clinton lost, I absolutely think Sanders could have won

Sanders' strongest constituency was well educated white people, which is a demographic that Clinton won handily (and improved dramatically over Obama with). Her primary problems were with lower turnout among African Americans and Hispanic voters, which were both constituencies that she won overwhelmingly against Sanders.

 

[fskimospy]

You claimed Hillary "won" the popular vote, you can't win something you weren't competing for.

/facepalm

 

[fskimospy]

In my state, if 51% of the people vote democratic, then 100% of our power/weight should go to the democrats. How is that not majority rule?

So if I understand you correctly you are saying that you believe that in a democratic country majority should rule, but the only place in that democracy you think the majority should rule is on the state popular vote level, even though that makes it so that the majority isn't ruling on a nationwide level.

I'm trying really hard to figure out how to twist my mind into something where you can say that you think the majority should rule and then embrace a system that has just resulted in the majority not ruling.

 

[buckshot24]

For the proportional EC vote guys how would you work how you do that? Take a state like North Dakota with 3 EC votes. One candidate gets 51% of the vote and the other 49%, how do you split that up? 2 to 1? That would mean that those in the 49% block get less representation in their vote and you'd still have these complaints. Do we award decimal places of EC votes? How would that work? Electors are people.

You'd also end up with more recounts and more legal battles since it will be more likely for vote counts to be sufficiently close to make an EC vote difference.