November 7, 201213 yr It can't be done by changing the constitution... but it can be done. National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states. States passing this interstate compact have agreed to replace their current rules regarding the apportionment of presidential electors with rules guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes in all fifty states and Washington, D.C. The agreement is to go into effect only when the participating states that have joined the compact together have an absolute majority in the Electoral College. In the subsequent presidential election, the participating states would award all their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, who as a result would win the presidency by winning more than half of electoral votes. Until the compact is joined by states with a majority of electoral votes, all states will continue to award their electoral votes in their current manner. Basically, states can allocate their Electoral College votes however they like. If enough states sign on to this that their combined votes break 270, then the Electoral College is circumvented and the President will be elected by direct popular vote. Kentucky has not yet signed on. You can do something to help make America's elections better and more representative. I say this even if Romney wins the popular vote tonight.
November 7, 201213 yr I'm not willing to go that far quite yet, but could perhaps be convinced. I think Obama will win the popular vote.
November 7, 201213 yr The person who gets the most votes should win and I feel that won't be the case this year.
November 7, 201213 yr Author I'm not willing to go that far quite yet, but could perhaps be convinced. I think Obama will win the popular vote. In what way is the Electoral College better than a direct national election for President, where Republicans in Massachusetts and Democrats in Texas have an actual vote for President? Where candidates don't focus on (and pander to) only a handful of states so that not only is the electoral process distorted but actual policy is as well? Just look at this quote from Arlen Specter: “I think it’d be very bad for Pennsylvania because we wouldn’t attract attention from Washington on important funding projects for the state. We are trying to get more funding now for the deepening of the port [of Philadelphia]. When I was on the Appropriations Committee, we got $77 million over the years … We are trying to get the president to do more." “Under the current electoral system, [President] Obama has good reason to give us the money to carry Pennsylvania. Because presidents think that way, it affects their decisions … In 2004, when I ran with [President George W.] Bush, he … came to Pennsylvania 44 times, and he was looking for items the state needed to help him win the state. … It’s undesirable to change the system so presidents won’t be asking us always for what we need, what they can do for us.”
November 7, 201213 yr In what way is the Electoral College better than a direct national election for President, where Republicans in Massachusetts and Democrats in Texas have an actual vote for President? Where candidates don't focus on (and pander to) only a handful of states so that not only is the electoral process distorted but actual policy is as well? Just look at this quote from Arlen Specter: As I said, I can be persuaded. But don't you think going straight popular vote will focus political attention to the more heavily populated areas? I see advantages with both systems.
November 7, 201213 yr The Electoral College is actually good for the smaller states. Think of all those swing states that got so much attention in this race. Take away the EC and candidates spend all their time in the big states and cities where the votes are.
November 7, 201213 yr States in the south are not going to let the east coast and CA determine the race. The Electoral system will outlive me.
November 7, 201213 yr Where were all the R's in 2000 with this idea? Same place as the Ds in 2000. Saying the popular vote should count.
November 7, 201213 yr Author As I said, I can be persuaded. But don't you think going straight popular vote will focus political attention to the more heavily populated areas? I see advantages with both systems. In a direct election, Romney would have been politicking in Kentucky to help turn out his base. Obama would have had stops in Louisville to turn out his. Would they have spent a ton of time here? No. But they don't now.
November 7, 201213 yr Same place as the Ds in 2000. Saying the popular vote should count.You mean 2012?
November 7, 201213 yr The popular vote should be the one to count I think in the end Its a national election and thus whoever "most" americans believe should be the POTUS should be elected. I don't see the point in electing someone POTUS if most americans don't even end up voting for him. There is a major flaw with that.
November 7, 201213 yr Author The Electoral College is actually good for the smaller states. Think of all those swing states that got so much attention in this race. Take away the EC and candidates spend all their time in the big states and cities where the votes are. Democrats would... and already do. Republicans would spend their time in rural areas... and already do.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.