Attack on the Electoral College

Date:  September 26, 2019  
Host:  Jim Schneider  
​Guest:  Ed Martin
MP3 ​​​| Order

Ed Martin is the President of Phyllis Schlafly Eagles, as well as affiliated organizations Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund and America’s Future.  Ed was nominated by Phyllis Schlafly to succeed her as the President of the Eagle Forum organizations. Ed is a lawyer who holds advanced degrees in medical ethics and philosophy and was chief of staff to former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt.

What exactly is the electoral college?  According to Ed, the founders decided that in order to get the 13 colonies to compromise, they had to do some things that would bind them together in ways that allowed the colonies that were smaller to feel as though they were equal to the larger ones.  

The result was the electoral college.  Voting would take place on a balance similar to that of our Senate and House.  Each state gets 2 votes with the rest of the votes being distributed by population.  It’s election based upon diffusion of influence.

He gave the example of the 1960 World Series.  The Pirates defeated the Yankees, 4 games to 3.  On the other hand, the Pirates were outscored in the series 55-27.  In spite of being outscored, we don’t say the Yankees won the series.  It’s this diffusion of influence, rather than a race for an ultimate number of votes through the courting of large population areas, that determines our presidential elections.

The reason this issue is making news again is because Colorado has become the 12th state to join an interstate compact.  Ed believes compacts such as this are an attempt to bind states together and agree to do something that will force others to go along.  For example, if the states that have the most interest in doing this (big population states) band together and decide that they will force their electors to vote the way of the popular vote in the nation, such a group of 11 or 12 states could try to swing the election against the rest of the country.  That’s unconstitutional.    

Ed communicated that people should be outraged that the national popular vote is being proposed by legislators.  However, if that’s what people want, they should work to eliminate the electoral college by amending the U.S. Constitution.  It shouldn’t come about by some backhanded deal that will cause people to be angry at each other when, for example, their electoral college vote in Wisconsin goes to the other party because Los Angeles and New York ‘ran up the score.’   

More Information:

www.phyllisschlafly.com

39 Comments on “Attack on the Electoral College”

  1. 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

    Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

    In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote

    In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
    Trump won those states.

    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 would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.

  2. In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as 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.

    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.

    In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state’s winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

    Question 1: “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”

    Question 2: “Do you think it more important that a state’s electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?”

    1. Usually the football team that gains the most yards Wins the game too. But not always. The Winner scores the most points, regardless if they gained more yards than their opponent or not.

      1. With National Popular Vote: All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
        Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

        Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, 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 power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

    2. The Electoral College has served the country well and for exactly the reasons the Founders foresaw. Large states with large populations , particularly in the North-east and in the old rust belt and in the south west and far west would dominate every election under the popular vote system. Believe me if it was working on behalf of the states before mentioned states, there would be no discussion of changing the electoral college. It is not so they wish to change the only means the smaller more numerous states have for being in play. Look at the map in 2012. The red states covered a good deal of the country but the big population centers, the big city Democrat strongholds, overwhelm the rest of the country. I do not believe your figures that the majority of Americans do not like the electoral college; I even more question anyone that says that someone would rather lose than retain the electoral college. The people who have sought underhanded means of overturning the last election are using this to attempt to over turn the 2020 election if it does not go their way. As for the suggestion that they try to change it legally as a constitutional amendment, forget it – they know they would never get it passed..

      1. The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as 48 states now do).

        Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

        Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 38+ states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.
        10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant now.

        Policies important to the citizens of the 38 non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

        “Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

        The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

        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.”

        Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

      2. With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 smaller states.

        With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

        But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 11 largest states: 7 voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, 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.

        With National Popular Vote, it’s not the size of any given state, it’s the size of their “margin” that will matter. Under a national popular vote, the margin of your loss within a state matters as much as the size of your win.

        In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
        * Texas (62% R), 1,691,267
        * New York (59% D), 1,192,436
        * Georgia (58% R), 544,634
        * North Carolina (56% R), 426,778
        * California (55% D), 1,023,560
        * Illinois (55% D), 513,342
        * New Jersey (53% D), 211,826

        To put these numbers in perspective,
        Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) 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).
        Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.
        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).

      3. With the National Popular Vote bill, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Pennsylvania and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn’t be about winning a handful of battleground states.

        We would not be doing away with the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.

        Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored, like medium and big states where the statewide winner is predictable, because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

        Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

        Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions.

        Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

        State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

        In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

        In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

        The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

        Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

        Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

        Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

      4. Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

        16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

        16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

        The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

        The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

      5. In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

        Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as 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.

        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.

        In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state’s winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

        Question 1: “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”

        Question 2: “Do you think it more important that a state’s electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?”

      6. The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

        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.”

        The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

        The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

        The bill 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.

        Under National Popular Vote, every voter, in every state, 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.

        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 Pennsylvania or Florida is now.
        Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, 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 power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

      7. 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.”

        Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill

        In 2017, Saul Anuzis and Michael Steele, the former chairmen of the Michigan and national Republican parties, wrote that the National Popular Vote bill was “an idea whose time has come”.

        On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote

        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

      8. 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.”

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

        Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
        “ 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.”

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

      9. As of Sep. 19, 2019, the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics sees “the overall Electoral College ratings exactly split, 248 apiece, with 42 electoral votes’ worth of Toss-ups: Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, plus Nebraska’s Second Congressional District.”

        The 2020 Electoral College map you come up with, under the current system, if you count up the popular vote of the 2018 congressional races is the same exact map by which Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 2012, except with Ohio (18) going to Republicans. It would have equated to 314 electoral votes for Democrats and 224 for the GOP.

  3. The U.S. Constitution says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by state legislatures with governors making changes in state law.

    Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation’s first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

    In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

    In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

    In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution and amend it.

    States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

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

    The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing 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.

    It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

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

  4. With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 smaller states.

    With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

    But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 11 largest states: 7 voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, 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.

    With National Popular Vote, it’s not the size of any given state, it’s the size of their “margin” that will matter. Under a national popular vote, the margin of your loss within a state matters as much as the size of your win.

    In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
    * Texas (62% R), 1,691,267
    * New York (59% D), 1,192,436
    * Georgia (58% R), 544,634
    * North Carolina (56% R), 426,778
    * California (55% D), 1,023,560
    * Illinois (55% D), 513,342
    * New Jersey (53% D), 211,826

    To put these numbers in perspective,
    Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) 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).
    Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.
    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).

  5. With the National Popular Vote bill, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Pennsylvania and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn’t be about winning a handful of battleground states.

    We would not be doing away with the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.

    Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored, like medium and big states where the statewide winner is predictable, because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

    Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions.

    Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

    State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

    In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

    In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

    The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

    Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

    Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

    Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

  6. The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as 48 states now do).

    Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

    Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 38+ states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.
    10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant now.

    Policies important to the citizens of the 38 non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    “Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

    The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

    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.”

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1880s after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state. The Founders had been dead for decades

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

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing 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.

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

  7. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact scheme is diabolical. It is dishonest. It is dangerous. It solves NONE of the so-called “problems” that it’s highly-paid sales staff claim it will.

    It is nothing more than an effort to forever elect urban Leftists to the office of President. By converting the United States into the open democracy that our Founders went to such great lengths to avoid (because they knew that democracies collapse in just 2 to 3 generations) is nothing less than the most dramatic, radical change to the United States in our history.

    The NPVIC scheme has no redeeming qualities in the slightest.

    The Electoral College is merely the STATES electing the President as they have done since our Founding. NEVER, EVER has our U.S. population been assigned the task, right, nor responsibility to elect the President.

    A popular vote for President is not even a BACK-UP plan to elect the President!! An election by the House of Representatives is – where it is One State, One Vote! The NPVIC effectively denies the States their role in that back up plan, too.

    Not every State had even HELD a Statewide popular election for President until the 1870s!! Any and every State remains free today to discontinue holding such popular elections for President – because the population has no intrinsic right to elect the President. The States do.

    The NPVIC scam is a full-on USURPATION of the STATES’ role to elect the President. It destroys the American Federation of States and it must be defeated.

    1. In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It 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.

    2. 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.”

      Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill

      In 2017, Saul Anuzis and Michael Steele, the former chairmen of the Michigan and national Republican parties, wrote that the National Popular Vote bill was “an idea whose time has come”.

      On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote

      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

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

      Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

      When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

      States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38 states and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

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

      “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”
      The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

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

      There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

    4. National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in 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.”

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

      Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

      In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800).

    5. In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
      ● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
      ● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
      ● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
      ● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
      ● popular election using congressional districts,
      ● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
      ● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
      ● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
      ● statewide popular election.

      The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes only became predominant by 1880 — almost a century after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

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

      As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

    6. All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
      Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

      Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, 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.

    7. [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

      Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election 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.

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

      Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. It is not rule by referendum.

      We would not be doing away with the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.

    8. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

      Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

      16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

      16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

      The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

      The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

    9. Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

      Some policies are evaluated based on their impact on swing states, not on their overall impact on the nation.

      Policies important to the citizens of the 38 non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

      The National Popular Vote system addresses the core threat of parochialism in presidential elections.

      “Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

      Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a “safe” state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a “swing” state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida’s shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states – like water issues in the west.
      In May 2019, after Hurricane Michael in October 2018, Trump told battleground state Florida voters “You’re getting your money one way or another, and we’re not going to let anybody hold it up.””I am doing the most allowed by law to support the people of Florida,” “We’ve already given you billions of dollars, and there’s a lot more coming.” “The money is coming immediately. No games, no gimmicks. We’re just doing it.”

    10. The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, and the Trump steel and aluminum tariffs now, from the free-trade party.

      Electoral math drives protectionist trade policies to favor parochial interests in battleground states.
      The root cause of the current trade war is the state-based winner take all system.
      “Trump’s Tariff Is a Gift to Swing States” – Bloomberg – 3/20/18
      And conversely, Trump’s trade war, with China targeting red states, could hurt the very voters who put him in the White House.
      “The Chinese are proving pretty adept at targeting so-called “red states” with their retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports, in response to more aggressive tariffs from President Trump on Chinese imports.” – Forbes – 9/25/19
      As trade and other tensions increase with foreign countries, U.S. foes and trading partners can micro-target their efforts against us. They’re certainly going to target major U.S. exports like soybeans and pork and investments, and many of those are in areas like the Farm Belt. The agriculture community is concerned about it. There are other possible easily identified targets as well.
      European Union officials quickly crafted possible retaliatory tariffs against American goods, using strategies using their knowledge of the effects of state winner take all laws for awarding electoral votes.

      Look at “the ailing agricultural industry and companies like Harley Davidson as casualties of the “winner-take-all” system. As the result of President Trump’s trade war, targeted countries retaliate by attacking industries in key “battleground” states, like Wisconsin, Michigan, and others that they know could harm his reelection. “- Rosenstiel

      The current state-based winner-take-all system allows foreign governments to weaponize protectionism against the battleground states and encourages presidents to start trade wars in order to win parochial voters in a handful of battleground states.

    11. Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).

      Facing fierce opposition by Democratic and Republican governors in all coastal states, after the Trump administration announced the opening of offshore oil drilling, only battleground state Florida has been exempted.

      Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years has been skewed to battleground states

    12. Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

      “Swing States A Special Vulnerability In Achieving Election Security, DHS Says” – 3/21/18
      “The reality is: Given our Electoral College and our current politics, national elections are decided in this country in a few precincts, in a few key swing states,” former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson
      The former secretary of DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen, echoed those comments

      In 2000, 537 popular votes in Florida determined that the candidate who had 537,179 less national popular votes would win.

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

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

      Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in 1, 2, or 3 states would have elected a 2nd-place candidate in 6 of the 18 presidential elections

    13. Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

      Issues of importance to 38 non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

      Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
      “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

      Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
      “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

      When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

    14. Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

      Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
      “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,”
      “The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

      Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

      With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

      In the 2016 general election campaign
      Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

      Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country’s population).

      In the 2012 general election campaign

      38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

      More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states.

      Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

      In the 2008 campaign, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA).

      In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

    15. Rasmussen Reports, 2/28/19 – believes only 46 electoral votes are in the Toss-up category- four states — Arizona, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, plus one congressional district, Nebraska’s Second (Omaha). The omissions that readers may find most surprising are Florida and Michigan. Much of the electoral map is easy to allocate far in advance: About 70% of the total electoral votes come from states and districts that have voted for the same party in at least the last five presidential elections.

      The Cook Political Report, as of Jan. 10, 2019, believes “There are just five toss up states, representing 86 electoral votes: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.”

      The Columbus Dispatch, as of Jan. 9, 2019, believes there will be “just seven states [with 105 electoral votes, where the winner is not predictable already] to allocate. Trump will be 66 electoral votes shy of re-election and the Democratic ticket will need 41 electoral votes to win back the presidency. The seven states are Arizona (11), Florida (29), Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10).”

      Advertising Analytics, as of July 2, 2019, projects presidential general election spending in two swing states alone — Florida and Pennsylvania — to top $600 million combined. Michigan $121 million Wisconsin $67 million, Ohio — a traditional swing state that has trended more conservative in recent years — only $39 million, Arizona, which could be a presidential battleground for the first time in years $141 million. Virginia and Minnesota, together, $41 million.

    16. Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

      As of Sep. 19, 2019, the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics sees “the overall Electoral College ratings exactly split, 248 apiece, with 42 electoral votes’ worth of Toss-ups: Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, plus Nebraska’s Second Congressional District.”

      As of Sep 4, 2019, The Hill’s “Interviews with two dozen strategists, political scientists and observers show the 10 counties across the country that will determine the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.” 1 each in AZ, GA, ME, MI, MN, NC, NH, PA, TX, WI.

      As of Aug 31, 2019, “Just four states are likely to determine the outcome in 2020: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida. Each flipped to the Republicans in 2016, but Donald Trump won each by only a percentage point or less.

      Many analysts point to Wisconsin as the single state upon which the election could turn.” – Washington Post

      As of Aug. 24th, 2019, bookmakers say the Swing States for 2020 are Arizona (11 electoral votes), Florida (29) and North Carolina (15). 3 states with 55 out of 538 electors.

      George Soros’ PAC as of Feb. 21, 2019 will invest $100 million in four 2020 swing states – Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

      A Trump supporting America First Action super PAC, as of May 9, 2019 is preparing to pour $250 Million into 6 states with expensive media markets and high numbers of electoral votes — Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina and Georgia, none of which has fewer than 15 electoral votes. The group’s leaders believe a Trump victory is virtually guaranteed in 2020 if he wins all six.

    17. Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

      Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions.

      Our presidential selection system has cut out 4 of every 5 people living in America from the decision. Presidential elections shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.

      The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican.

      This leads to a corrupt and toxic body politic.

    18. “ Let’s quit pretending there is some great benefit to the national good that allows the person with the least 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 (Republican)

      In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until 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).

      When asked the simple question “Do you think the person who wins the most votes nationwide should become the president?” 74% of all Americans surveyed say yes.

      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.

      There are 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.

      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.

    19. 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.”

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

      Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
      “ 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.”

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

  8. The small states (the 13 states with only three or four electoral votes) are the most disadvantaged and ignored group of states under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. The reason is that political power in presidential elections comes from being a closely divided battleground state, and almost all of the small states are noncompetitive states in presidential elections. The 12 small non-battleground states have about the same population (12 million) as the closely divided battleground state of Ohio. The 12 small states have 40 electoral votes—more than twice Ohio’s 18 electoral votes. However, Ohio received 73 of 253 post-convention campaign events in 2012, while the 12 small non-battleground states received none. The current state-by-state winner-take-all system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-sized states to voters in a handful of big states that happen to be closely divided battleground states in presidential elections. Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, a vote for President in Wyoming is equal to a vote in California—both are politically irrelevant. In an election where the national popular vote determines the winner, all votes are equal. They all count as one vote.

Leave a Reply