Over 80% of Democrats recognize the flaws in the Electoral College and support abolishing it in favor of a National Popular Vote.

[mvymvy]

Well...

It's a good thing that Democrats make up only 29% of the American population.

View attachment 67421701

Party Affiliation

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent? (Asked of independents: As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?)

news.gallup.com

This means that "80% of Democrats" is a really, really small number.

Face it...the Electoral College is here to stay.

btw, that dishonest end run around the Constitution...the National Popular Interstate Compact...has already failed, since it depends upon liberal-controlled state legislatures. There just aren't enough of them to make it work.

On December 17, 2020, Gallup polling found that
31% of Americans identified as Democrats,
25% identified as Republican, and
41% as Independent.

The National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws. The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.

The bill changes state statewide 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.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law.

In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

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

In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill.

NY and CA enacted it with bipartisan support.

On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

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

State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

83% of America’s state legislatures are up for grabs in 2022.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

The EC is a corrupt tool. We got GW and Trump because of it.......I believe Hillary had 2.8 million more votes than the Rump.

The EC is out of line ...... it must go!!!!

Hillary Clinton got over 3 million more votes than Donald Trump in 2016.

I read a couple times if there was no EC in 1960, declaring John Kennedy the winner would have required a very time-consuming nationwide recount. His victory was by less than 1 million votes.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

What do you all think of Alaska's new ranked voting system? It went into effect this year, beginning with the special election to replace a Congressman who died.

 

[Razoo]

What do you all think of Alaska's new ranked voting system? It went into effect this year, beginning with the special election to replace a Congressman who died.

love the concept.

 

[Razoo]

https://www.nytimes.com › supreme-court-electoral-college
The Electoral College Is a Confusing Mess. Even the Supreme Court justices are perplexed. May 13, 2020. A Colorado elector, Micheal Baca, second from left, ...


Why the Electoral College is the absolute worst, explained - Vox
https://www.vox.com › policy-and-politics › 2016/11
Dec 19, 2016 — Hillary Clinton won more votes than Donald Trump. But due to the magic of the Electoral College, ...


Why on earth do we even have an electoral college anyway?
https://www.washingtonpost.com › news › 2016/11/08
Nov 8, 2016 — You don't need 50,546,180 votes to be president — you need 270. The electoral college will determine the winner of the presidential election ...

It's time to abolish the Electoral College - Brookings Institution
https://www.brookings.edu › policy2020 › bigideas › it...


..

Take your choice it is time to move forward .........

http://www.instantrunoff.com

http://www.fairvote.org

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org

http://www.firv.org/

http://www.massirv.org

http://www.nysirv.org

http://www.midwestdemocracy.org

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I love the concept.

Would you want your state to try it?

 

[Fishking]

Over 80% of Democrats recognize the flaws in the Electoral College and support abolishing it in favor of a National Popular Vote. And 89% of those respondents want a constitutional amendment to get rid of it!

But the vast majority of Republicans oppose changing anything about it. They benefit from the Electoral College and its skewed representation – which means an amendment would never get through the 50-50 tied Senate.

That’s why the states have a plan to bypass Congress, ignore Mitch McConnell, and elect the popular vote winner directly.

It’s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Let's make it law.

It's not skewed representation at all. People just haven't been educated on the election process and why it is how it is. It's a consensus of the states that gets you the President's office. It's not winning by millions in a single extremist state like California dictating their radical policies on the rest of the country.

 

[TobyOne]

80% of democrats are ignorant mouth breathers. No wait, its %100.

 

[Nickyjo]

Well...

It's a good thing that Democrats make up only 29% of the American population.

View attachment 67421701

Party Affiliation

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent? (Asked of independents: As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?)

news.gallup.com

This means that "80% of Democrats" is a really, really small number.

Face it...the Electoral College is here to stay.

btw, that dishonest end run around the Constitution...the National Popular Interstate Compact...has already failed, since it depends upon liberal-controlled state legislatures. There just aren't enough of them to make it work.

The only thing about getting rid of the Electoral College that worries me is that a purely popular vote might increase national advertising and thus the role of money in US politics. Both the EC and the Senate (much more so) are obviously undemocratic institutions, and wouldn't exist if we were starting over again to create a constitution. Try for example, to split our largest state, California, into (at least)'two states, which makes sense given its size. See how many Senators from the Dakotas and Wyoming would go along with that.

 

[PoS]

The National Popular Vote bill KEEPS the Electoral College.
It will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

The current presidential election system of state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) “is a math equation, and its sole remaining impact on American politics is to magnify the political power of some Americans and reduce that of others. “ – Boston Globe, 7/6/20

“Let’s quit pretending there is some great benefit to the national good that allows the person with [fewer] votes to win the White House. Republicans have long said that they believe in competition. Let both parties compete for votes across the nation and stop disenfranchising voters by geography. The winner should win.” – Stuart Stevens (Romney presidential campaign top strategist)

When presidential candidates who more Americans voted for lose the Electoral College, the situation is unsustainable. This is how a government loses its legitimacy.

Unfair election systems can lead to politicians and their supporters who appreciate unfairness, which leads to more unfairness.

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).

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.

More than 3,522 state legislators among all 50 states have endorsed it.

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 EC exists to give states with smaller populations some influence. If the POTUS elections were done by a purely popular vote they would get thrown to the curb.

 

[Razoo]

Would you want your state to try it?

you bet .....the USA in general

 

[Razoo]

The EC exists to give states with smaller populations some influence. If the POTUS elections were done by a purely popular vote they would get thrown to the curb.

17 states could elect a president thus 33 states get thrown under the bus. Most money and visits occur in these 17 states.

Over 80% of Democrats who participated recognize the flaws in the Electoral College and support abolishing it in favor of a National Popular Vote.

 

[Nickyjo]

The EC exists to give states with smaller populations some influence. If the POTUS elections were done by a purely popular vote they would get thrown to the curb.

The issue isn't "some influence." States with smaller populations should have smaller influence. With the EC they have more influence.

 

[TobyOne]

Clueless. What do you think would happen if the popular vote was the the deciding vote? Money would flow into the most populous states. Do you think that candidates would not change their spending? Do you think Trump, who lost the popular vote by 3 Million could not have found 3 million votes in California, New York and Texas if he would have spent more time and money there? If you think not then you don't understand politics.

17 states could elect a president thus 33 states get thrown under the bus. Most money and visits occur in these 17 states.

 

[Razoo]

Majority supports changing Electoral College system for U.S. ...​

https://www.pewresearch.org › ... › Voters & Voting

Aug 5, 2022 — 63% of Americans say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the ...

ABA Legal Fact Check: Can the Electoral College be abolished?​

https://www.americanbar.org › youraba › october-2019

A. This spring, numerous candidates for president expressed support for either abolishing or changing the Electoral College, which ultimately picks the U.S. ...

Should We Abolish the Electoral College?​

https://stanfordmag.org › contents › should-we-abolish-...

So, let me make the case for its abolition and its replacement by a simple national popular vote, to be held in an entity we will call (what the heck) the ...

Why We Should Abolish the Electoral College​

https://www.nytimes.com › Books › Book Review

Oct 4, 2020 — LET THE PEOPLE PICK THE PRESIDENT The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College By Jesse Wegman. It's hard to imagine a political ...

Should we abolish the Electoral College? - Podcast​

https://constitutioncenter.org › news-debate › podcasts

The National Constitution Center is the only institution in America chartered by Congress to disseminate information about the U.S. Constitution on a ...

61% of Americans Support Abolishing Electoral College​

https://news.gallup.com › poll › americans-support-abolis...

Sep 24, 2020 — Story Highlights. 61% prefer amending Constitution to use popular vote to elect president; 89% of Democrats, 23% of Republicans favor popular ...

Abolishing The Electoral College Would Be More Complicated ...​

https://www.npr.org › 2019/03/22 › abolishing-the-electo...

Mar 22, 2019 — Democratic presidential candidates are weighing in too. "Every vote matters," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in Mississippi on Monday. " ...

Why Democrats Want to Abolish the Electoral College—and ...​

https://fortune.com › 2019/04/02 › abolish-the-electoral...

Apr 2, 2019 — Bush and Donald Trump both lost the national popular vote in their respective elections in 2000 and 2016, but went on to become president. On ...

 

[Razoo]

The issue isn't "some influence." States with smaller populations should have smaller influence. With the EC they have more influence.

exactly .......

Popular Vote means all votes matter thus = more patriotic = one person = one vote

Electoral College is a flawed formula which works for the minority party and encourages voter suppression which is a crime.

 

[Brack]

The EC is a corrupt tool. We got GW and TRump because of it.......I believe Hillary had 2.8 million more votes than the Rump.

The EC is out of line ...... it must go!!!!

GW Bush would have probably won the popular vote if there wasn't the Electoral College.

 

[Razoo]

GW Bush would have probably won the popular vote if there wasn't the Electoral College.

he did not win the popular vote ............. Gore did.

 

[Torus34]

At present there are two states, Maine and Nebraska, which allot delegates to the Electoral College based upon, roughly, the popular vote.

Any further move away from the all or nothing allocation would probably take place only in 'blue' states. As this would increase the advantage held by the Republican Party, it's doubtful if it will occur. A Constitutional Amendment is not possible given the mindsets of the two parties at this time.

Talk of a change is meaningless palaver for the next several years.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Moon]

isn't there something wrong with a picture which allows a candidate with the most popular votes to lose an election?

No, because there’s no requirement that states hold popular votes to determine the President.

 

[Rucker61]

The EC is a corrupt tool. We got GW and TRump because of it.......I believe Hillary had 2.8 million more votes than the Rump.

The EC is out of line ...... it must go!!!!

By the time the Democrats had enough power to get rid of the EC, the only way they could lose the Presidency is to get rid of the EC.

 

[Rucker61]

The National Popular Vote bill KEEPS the Electoral College.
It will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

The current presidential election system of state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) “is a math equation, and its sole remaining impact on American politics is to magnify the political power of some Americans and reduce that of others. “ – Boston Globe, 7/6/20

“Let’s quit pretending there is some great benefit to the national good that allows the person with [fewer] votes to win the White House. Republicans have long said that they believe in competition. Let both parties compete for votes across the nation and stop disenfranchising voters by geography. The winner should win.” – Stuart Stevens (Romney presidential campaign top strategist)

When presidential candidates who more Americans voted for lose the Electoral College, the situation is unsustainable. This is how a government loses its legitimacy.

Unfair election systems can lead to politicians and their supporters who appreciate unfairness, which leads to more unfairness.

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).

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.

More than 3,522 state legislators among all 50 states have endorsed it.

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).

This would require that enough red states vote themselves into irrelevancy.

 

[Rucker61]

I do not see reason enough to update such a document that makes no sense. Just remove the Electoral College for lack of reasons to maintain.

Notice the fake GOP spends more time and money in states with the largest number of EC votes. Perhaps both parties are doing this. I say 1 person 1vote = popular vote decides.

How can the EC college be repeated when one candidate receives 2.8 million more votes yet is not selected as the majority choice?

Not every vote counts under the EC umbrella....... or appears as such.

Find a recent red/blue map of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

 

[Rucker61]

The issue isn't "some influence." States with smaller populations should have smaller influence. With the EC they have more influence.

Tough.

 

[eman623]

You can toss out all the arguments in favor of the NPV. Democrats like the it ONLY because they think it will help them. That's it.

If we somehow got it enacted and there was an election or two where the Dems won the EC but lost the popular vote, they'd bethe first ones calling for its repeal.