Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
Who cares who it is popular with.. it doesn't matter. Popular vote is the quickest way to (further) ruin the country. Mob voting. Horrible idea. Nobody with any common sense would support such nonsense.
"Fly over" country is flown over. IGNORED. That's what it means.
80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
No. you're scenario is an exaggeration based upon unrealistic premises. What I present is basic mathematics in a very possible and plausible scenario. If you aren't going to take a discussion seriously then better end this chat here. I don't intend to waste any more of my time and energy in making a blind person see the very obvious and stupid faults the electoral college has.
Your theory is that voters who vote for losing candidates have their votes ignored. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every vote is an important part of the political process and the political dialogue keeps us centered.
And if 6 candidates are on the ballot and the one with the majority votes wins with lets day, 30% of the vote, how well will that go over? Rare? Sure, but as someone else said, it is "perfectly possible"..
I'd be perfectly fine with the congressional district based system used in Nebraska and Maine.
If you're going to vote, please explain your answer.
Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.
A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***
A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
NationalPopularVote
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there are now only 35 "battleground" districts that were competitive in the 2012 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 92% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
I support the electoral college.I do not want California,New York and a few other extremely populated states making decisions for the whole entire country.
I support the electoral college.I do not want California,New York and a few other extremely populated states making decisions for the whole entire country.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Though both popular vote and electoral college are both actions of democracy, only the electoral college protects Federalism.
Federalism- A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. It is essential to liberty for all. The concept is not respected on the left and the right has become in recent years more pragmatic in their approach to the need for and the restoring of Federalism.
I live in New York and I don't want the liberals making decisions for the entire state in national elections
And just how does the Electoral College accomplish this goal?
Though both popular vote and electoral college are both actions of democracy, only the electoral college protects Federalism.
Federalism- A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. It is essential to liberty for all. The concept is not respected on the left and the right has become in recent years more pragmatic in their approach to the need for and the restoring of Federalism.
Then you probably shouldn't be living in states where there is a large city that votes Democrat.
I support the electoral college.I do not want California,New York and a few other extremely populated states making decisions for the whole entire country.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Then you probably shouldn't be living in states where there is a large city that votes Democrat.
I think what the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would do is worse. If we ever had a serious third party challenger, a candidate could win with around 30-40% of the vote. Imagine if we had a national scenario like Maine had in 2010. Despite 62% of the people voting for someone ranging from slightly liberal to very liberal a tea party conservative was elected governor. It's better to have it go to congress decide it than to have a President elected that a large majority of people don't want.
And just how does the Electoral College accomplish this goal?
Well heymarket lets look how long it has been successfully in place for starters.......
It further protects the freedom of individuals in small and sparsely populated states from the tyranny of the majority in a national election for President.
Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy.
The author(s) of the Constitution (Madison often called the father of the Constitution) had studied the history of many failed democratic systems, and they wanted to create a different form of government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unrestrained majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny.
Know the failures of democracies from history
The Electoral College was considered to fit perfectly within this republican, federalist government that had been created. The system would allow majorities to rule, but only while they were reasonable, broad-based, and not tyrannical while allowing all states no matter how small a voice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?