(10-14-2021 11:19 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 09:39 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  So if the crooked states like CA and IL pile up a bazillion fake votes for the democrat, these other state's votes wont matter.

I get it. Typical democrat crookedness.

That’s about it in a nutshell.
If we all want to be ruled by those voting in NY, Califa, IL for all the good they do for their own constituents, then by all means vote for this rot.

My goodness, the levels to which ONE MAN wrecked these people is astonishing.

Sky scream somewhere else pls.

The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
All voters in those state, and all other states, do not all vote for the same candidate.

In 2016,
CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

(10-14-2021 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Where I think it runs into problems, among other places, is equal protection. If you pass such a law, you have basically deemed the voters in your state irrelevant, and effectively deprived them of the right to vote.

No voter in any state would be deprived of the right to vote.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

In presidential elections, current state statewide winner-take-all laws create the illusion that entire states voted 100% for the state’s winner, because the laws award 100% of each state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most votes in the state. However, for example, in Connecticut, the actual vote was 898,000 votes for Clinton; 673,000 for Trump, 49,000 for Johnson, and 23,000 for Stein.

The price that a state pays for its winner-take-all law is that the Democratic candidates take blue states for granted, The Republican candidates take red states for granted. Every voter in safe states—Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green—ends up without any meaningful influence or voice in the presidential election.

Some voters have voted for every presidential election since the early 1990s, but state winner-take-all laws for electoral college votes have made sure not a SINGLE vote in their life for president has mattered because they are in the minority party in their state. They could have never voted for President, and still had the same impact. None.

A voter in one state can live less than a mile from another, with wildly different (if any) political relevance in a presidential general election.

With National Popular Vote,
Every vote in the country would actually count equally toward selecting the winner. Candidates would have an incentive to campaign in all states instead of ignoring 38 "safe" states and "lost cause" states. Think it through. Millions of Republicans in California and New York could actually help elect a Republican President. Now their votes are meaningless because states award all their electoral voters to the statewide winner.

With the National Popular Vote bill, every voter, in every state, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
All votes would matter and count equally in the national vote total.

The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as Florida. The National Popular Vote bill would give voice to every voter in the country, as opposed to treating voters for candidates who did not win a plurality in the state as if they did not exist.

The National Popular Vote bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place 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 presidential candidates.
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
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).

oh my my - compare ‘16 to ‘20 - then get back to me with another worthless diatribe of pointless nonsense …

(10-14-2021 10:56 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 09:34 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 09:07 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 08:55 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So I know we've had this brought up a few times over the past.. But earlier this week I saw where Michigan was trying to get in on it.

For those who don't know, several states are trying to band together and when they hit 270 electoral votes they'll have legislation in place to award their electoral votes to the President who wins the popular vote not who wins their state.

So my question to the group is do you think this is constitutional or even legal?

It seems to be a clear violation of the Compact Clause and the 12th and 20th Amendments. If it ever passed the required number of states I can't see the supreme court not striking it down.

^^^ or secession begins…

^I think we are rapidly approaching this ^

Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones).
One example is the Multi-State Lottery Compact (which operates the Powerball lotto game in numerous states).

The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children is one of the many interstate compacts that do not require (and never received) congressional consent.

Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

The U.S. Constitution provides:
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state…."

Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
"Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

"The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."

Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states' action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:
"the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government."

The Court also noted that the compact did not
"authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence."

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

Under statewide “winner-take-all” laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed in the Constitution, now used in 48 states, the presidential-elector candidates who receive the most popular votes statewide are elected.

In district winner states, the candidate for the position of presidential elector who wins the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote).

In states enacting the National Popular Vote bill, when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538, all of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC).

Non-enacting states could award their electors however they want. Continuing with statewide winner-take-all, or enacting some other law.

Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President.

The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.

The terms of the President and Vice President shall continue to end at noon on the 20th day of January . . . and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

(10-14-2021 10:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 09:07 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 08:55 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So I know we've had this brought up a few times over the past.. But earlier this week I saw where Michigan was trying to get in on it.

For those who don't know, several states are trying to band together and when they hit 270 electoral votes they'll have legislation in place to award their electoral votes to the President who wins the popular vote not who wins their state.

So my question to the group is do you think this is constitutional or even legal?

It seems to be a clear violation of the Compact Clause and the 12th and 20th Amendments. If it ever passed the required number of states I can't see the supreme court not striking it down.

Im pretty sure it says the state legislatures run the election in each state. Its probably legal---but its stupid. Why would you want to undermine the wishes of your own states voters? Wouldnt the wiser choice be to apportion your states electoral votes to reflect the outcome of the election (rounded to the nearest elector)? So, if the vote was 60% to 40%---the states winning candidates would get 6 of the states 10 electoral votes and the loser would get 4 electoral votes. At least that reflects the actual voter outcome in your state.

Proportional awarding of electors by state would not be a fair “compromise” or solution.

There are good reasons why no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally.

In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President).
Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

(10-15-2021 07:24 AM)mvymvy Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:19 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 09:39 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  So if the crooked states like CA and IL pile up a bazillion fake votes for the democrat, these other state's votes wont matter.

I get it. Typical democrat crookedness.

That’s about it in a nutshell.
If we all want to be ruled by those voting in NY, Califa, IL for all the good they do for their own constituents, then by all means vote for this rot.

My goodness, the levels to which ONE MAN wrecked these people is astonishing.

Sky scream somewhere else pls.

The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
All voters in those state, and all other states, do not all vote for the same candidate.

In 2016,
CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

Leftist elites in places like California, New York, Oregon, Minnesota and Illinois don’t like the idea that the Electoral College determines who the president is and not them. Eliminating the Electoral College is a liberal wet dream.

It will never happen.

Backward hayseeds like myself in “Flyover Country” will never let that happen. Leftists can kiss my conservative ass.

(10-14-2021 10:27 PM)Todor Wrote:  I'm sure they have run the numbers and determined this trick will always work to the dems advantage, and never the Conservatives advantage.

All it does is add another finger to the scales.

Exactly. It would be a race for number-crunching just enough votes via mail-ins in CA and NYC.

That pause we saw in 2020 swing states will be a standard requisite

(10-15-2021 07:33 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Leftist elites in places like California, New York, Oregon, Minnesota and Illinois don’t like the idea that the Electoral College determines who the president is and not them. Eliminating the Electoral College is a liberal wet dream.

It will never happen.

Backward hayseeds like myself in “Flyover Country” will never let that happen. Leftists can kiss my conservative ass.

(10-15-2021 06:56 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 06:54 AM)mvymvy Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:27 PM)Todor Wrote:  I'm sure they have run the numbers and determined this trick will always work to the dems advantage, and never the Conservatives advantage.

All it does is add another finger to the scales.

Trump in June 2019 – Fox News interview
“It’s always tougher for the Republican because, . . . the Electoral College is very much steered to the Democrats. It’s a big advantage for the Democrats. It’s very much harder for the Republicans to win.”

Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”
“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”
“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”

“I would rather have a popular vote. “
Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.

And your point?

Supporters include Conservatives and Republicans.

A national popular vote for President was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN).

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote has included former Congressman John Buchanan (R–Alabama), and former Senators David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah), plus Michael Steele (former RNC Chair), and Rick Tyler

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 National Popular Vote plan would not help either party over the other.

Bob Barr (2008 Libertarian presidential candidate) supports the National Popular Vote bill: “Only when the election process is given back to all of the people of all of the states will we be able to choose a President based on what is best for all 50 states and not just a select few.”

Supporters include:
The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson.

Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State

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."

Rick Tyler, senior member of Senator Ted Cruz's campaign team, serving as the National Spokesman and Communications Director for Cruz for President.

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote" 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 the California Republican Party chairman, 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 as a Republican in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray was 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 who 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.

Since polling began in 1944 until the 2016 election, support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in polls

boys and girls … oh my my is a canned ai/bot/wtfe program, or someone pulling from a canned site …

thus, the internutz experiment continues …

(10-14-2021 09:34 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 09:07 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 08:55 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So I know we've had this brought up a few times over the past.. But earlier this week I saw where Michigan was trying to get in on it.

For those who don't know, several states are trying to band together and when they hit 270 electoral votes they'll have legislation in place to award their electoral votes to the President who wins the popular vote not who wins their state.

So my question to the group is do you think this is constitutional or even legal?

It seems to be a clear violation of the Compact Clause and the 12th and 20th Amendments. If it ever passed the required number of states I can't see the supreme court not striking it down.

^^^ or secession begins…

This has my vote.

(10-15-2021 07:41 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 07:33 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Leftist elites in places like California, New York, Oregon, Minnesota and Illinois don’t like the idea that the Electoral College determines who the president is and not them. Eliminating the Electoral College is a liberal wet dream.

It will never happen.

Backward hayseeds like myself in “Flyover Country” will never let that happen. Leftists can kiss my conservative ass.

The bill would NOT eliminate the Electoral College.

“I would rather have a popular vote. “
Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.

In 1970, The U.S. House of Representatives voted 338–70 for a national popular vote.
3 Southern segregationist Senators filibustered it.

Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX), Bob Dole (R-KS), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Nixon (R-CA).

Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
A September 2020 Gallup survey found 61% of American voters support moving to a popular vote system. 89% of Democrats, 68% of independents 23% of Republicans.

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

21,461 choices and votes in 3 states were 329 times more important than the more than 7 million national vote lead in the country.
There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents.
That could have reduced future turnout more, if more voters realized their votes do not matter.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 41 state legislative chambers in 25 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 283 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (15), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 195 electoral votes – 72% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, again using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to choose how to vote.

(10-15-2021 07:33 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:27 PM)Todor Wrote:  I'm sure they have run the numbers and determined this trick will always work to the dems advantage, and never the Conservatives advantage.

All it does is add another finger to the scales.

Exactly. It would be a race for number-crunching just enough votes via mail-ins in CA and NYC.

That pause we saw in 2020 swing states will be a standard requisite

George W. Bush LOST California and New York in 2004 and still won the popular vote.

In 2020,
There were more Republican votes in CA than Texas.
None helped Trump in any way.

There were more Democratic votes in Texas than in NY.
None helped Biden in any way.

California and New York state had a total of 24,243,000 registered voters.
15% of the total number of registered voters in the US in 2018 (which is 153,066,000).

5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.
1,366,760 New Yorkers live in rural areas.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.

California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million).

In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

All voters in any state do not all vote for the same candidate.
Now, all electors of a state all vote for the statewide winner.
No losing party voters for president matter in any way in each state.

Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

All voters in any state do not all vote for the same candidate.
Now, all electors of a state all vote for the statewide winner.
No losing party voters for president matter in any way in each state.

In total New York state and California (84 electors in total) cast 16% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20) (87 total) cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.

All the voters – 66% -- in the 45 other states and DC would matter and count equally.

The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

Under a popular-vote system CA and NY Democrats would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be offset by NY and CA Republican votes.

The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency.

With both the current system and the National Popular Vote bill, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

All presidential votes have NEVER been fully and continually counted within 24 hours of an election.

Climb down off your soapbox.

You’re not going to change anyones mind about how much easier it would be for lowlife Liberals to steal Presidential elections without an Electoral College.

If we’re going to reform our elections, personally I would like to see election results announced before the Socialists in California, Washington and Oregon have voted.

That’s how it used to be done and should never have changed.

To the troll MVY

You don’t know what you are talking about. Both FL and OH finished most of their counting on Election night saved for the typical outstanding votes like provisionals, some AB, Military votes…etc

OH their neighboring state has 2 million more amount of people than Michigan and twice as much than Wisconsin in the region

Florida has around twice as much population as PA and GA

Yet those other swing states and only those pause for the night or as they claim while OH and FL had no problems finishing most of their counting and that included having mail-in ballots

(10-15-2021 09:35 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Climb down off your soapbox.

You’re not going to change anyones mind about how much easier it would be for lowlife Liberals to steal Presidential elections without an Electoral College.

If we’re going to reform our elections, personally I would like to see election results announced before the Socialists in California, Washington and Oregon have voted.

That’s how it used to be done and should never have changed.

The bill KEEPS the Electoral College.

5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.

There are 5 million Republicans in California. That is a larger number of Republicans than 47 other states.

Trump got more votes in California than he got in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia combined.
None of the votes in California for Trump, helped Trump.

California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.

The vote difference in California wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.

California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton

61% of an equally populous Republican base area of states running from West Virginia to Wyoming (termed “Appalachafornia”) votes were for Trump. He got 4,475,297 more votes than Clinton.
With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all votes for all candidates in California and Appalachafornia will matter equally.

In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
About 62% Democratic

California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.

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).

With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all Republican votes in California and every other state will matter.

The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency.

California and New York state had a total of 24,243,000 registered voters.
15% of the total number of registered voters in the US in 2018 (which is 153,066,000).

5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.
1,366,760 New Yorkers live in rural areas.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.

California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million).

In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

All voters in any state do not all vote for the same candidate.
Now, all electors of a state all vote for the statewide winner.
No losing party voters for president matter in any way in each state.

Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

All voters in any state do not all vote for the same candidate.
Now, all electors of a state all vote for the statewide winner.
No losing party voters for president matter in any way in each state.

In total New York state and California (84 electors in total) cast 16% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20) (87 total) cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.

All the voters – 66% -- in the 45 other states and DC would matter and count equally.

The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

Under a popular-vote system CA and NY Democrats would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be offset by NY and CA Republican votes.

The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency.

The most populous SIX states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
All voters in those state, and all other states, do not all vote for the same candidate.

In 2016,
CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“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."

Under statewide “winner-take-all” laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed in the Constitution, now used in 48 states, the presidential-elector candidates who receive the most popular votes statewide are elected.

In district winner states, the candidate for the position of presidential elector who wins the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote).

In states enacting the National Popular Vote bill, when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538, all of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC).

Non-enacting states could award their electors however they want. Continuing with statewide winner-take-all, or enacting some other law.

Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President.

The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.

(10-15-2021 09:43 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  To the troll MVY

You don’t know what you are talking about. Both FL and OH finished most of their counting on Election night saved for the typical outstanding votes like provisionals, some AB, Military votes…etc

OH their neighboring state has 2 million more amount of people than Michigan and twice as much than Wisconsin in the region

Florida has around twice as much population as PA and GA

Yet those other swing states and only those pause for the night or as they claim while OH and FL had no problems finishing most of their counting and that included having mail-in ballots

Florida and Ohio both allow absentee ballots to be processed in advance of election day.

Quote:As some in the nation fret that absentee ballots might delay results in the Nov. 3 presidential election, Franklin County is expected to have results quickly.

Though some states prohibit local election boards from processing ballots by checking signatures and other requirements until after in-person precinct polls have closed, Ohio allows counties much more leeway, said Ed Leonard, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections.

Not only can voters' qualifications and signatures be checked early, but votes can be electronically "scanned" – or entered into the computer system.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2020...893748002/

States like Michigan and Pennsylvania could not:

Quote:With more than 200,000 mail-in ballots expected to arrive at Montgomery County's election office for the Nov. 3 presidential election, local officials would like time before Election Day to begin sorting those ballots.

Right now, they can't do anything with the mail-in ballots except receive them and hold them until Election Day, Montgomery County Commissioner Kenneth Lawrence Jr. said.

That's when counties will finally be allowed to start counting millions of mail-in ballots, even though many will have been sitting in their election offices for days, if not weeks.

State law currently prohibits any counting of mail-in ballots before 7 a.m. on Nov. 3, and county election officials like Lawrence Jr. would like any help they can get through new laws from the state Legislature to quicken the process.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/pol...g/2543334/

(10-15-2021 09:43 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  To the troll MVY

You don’t know what you are talking about. Both FL and OH finished most of their counting on Election night saved for the typical outstanding votes like provisionals, some AB, Military votes…etc

OH their neighboring state has 2 million more amount of people than Michigan and twice as much than Wisconsin in the region

Florida has around twice as much population as PA and GA

Yet those other swing states and only those pause for the night or as they claim while OH and FL had no problems finishing most of their counting and that included having mail-in ballots

Yes. Outstanding votes like provisionals, some AB, Military votes… are NOT all counted within 24 hours.

On November 17, 2020, Florida’s election results became official.

On November 27, 2020 Ohio Governor Mike DeWine Friday signed Ohio’s Certificate of Ascertainment, which identifies the appointed electors and final vote count in Ohio for each candidate in the U.S. Presidential Election held on Nov. 3, 2020.

The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against “pure insanity,” deception, and manipulation.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 17 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 9 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988.

537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

Less than 80,000 votes in 3 states determined the 2016 election, where there was a lead of over 2,8oo,ooo popular votes nationwide.

A different choice by 5,229 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 5,890 in Georgia (16), and 10,342 in Wisconsin (10) would have defeated Biden -- despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.
Each of these 21,461 voters was 329 times more important than the more than 7 million.

The national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).

If Hillary Clinton had gotten 93.7% (rather than 88.2%) of the black vote, equaling Obama, she would have tied Trump in the Electoral College. The election would have been thrown into the U.S. House (with each state casting one vote) and the election of the Vice President would be thrown into the U.S. Senate. Congress would decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

There were several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.

This is a good place for this:

(10-15-2021 12:55 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  This is a good place for this:

“Republic not a democracy” is one of the more overt examples of the GOP slide toward fascism in an era already rife with undemocratic Republican power plays. It is part of ongoing efforts to delegitimize the election process itself.

[The] difference between a democracy and a republic [is] the delegation of the government, the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest."
In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents."- Madison

Every other elected political office in the US is elected by one person, one vote popular vote.

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election by the Electoral College of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. It is not rule by referendum.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

With the National Popular Vote bill, we would not do away with the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes

The National Popular Vote bill is 72% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. It would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter 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.

Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.