One good thing about living in Ohio is that I feel like my vote actually matters every election. If I lived in California or Massachusetts, why even bother going to the polls when electing the president??

 

Honestly the 16 election is one of a few things keeping me in Ohio instead of taking a position back in Kentucky.

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

 

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

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

 

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates.

 

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

 

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

 

With National Popular Vote, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 7 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80%+ of the country that is currently conceded 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.

 

This country isn't a pure democracy. A pure popular vote defeats the very principal of our Federal government and our state system.

 

People who support pure popular vote don't understand the check and balances of our system and how it is meant to stop mob rule.

 

Why have a Senate that elects 2 Senators from every state then ? There is a method to the system to not let short term mob mindset destroy the fabric of the system.

Would this fit under "mob rule" though? Electing the president by popular vote of the people.

 

I get it we don't want laws to be determined by the citizens, because a good portion don't know what they are talking about or allow personal morals to get in the way.

 

In our current system my vote means nothing in my county and state. Would we increase voter turnout if we changed our system?

Would this fit under "mob rule" though? Electing the president by popular vote of the people.

 

I get it we don't want laws to be determined by the citizens, because a good portion don't know what they are talking about or allow personal morals to get in the way.

 

In our current system my vote means nothing in my county and state. Would we increase voter turnout if we changed our system?

 

By allowing a pure popular vote for a National election that is the definition of mob rule. There is a reason for electoral college and it has served it's purpose.

 

By allowing each state to have a voice actually allows more voters a voice. What if a state with a high population like California went 80% Democrat and we allowed a pure popular vote? The electoral college keeps each state soverign right to have a say in the office of the President.

 

If people get past this idea of a pure democracy which has never existed in this country they will realize why we have the electoral college.

By allowing a pure popular vote for a National election that is the definition of mob rule. There is a reason for electoral college and it has served it's purpose.

 

By allowing each state to have a voice actually allows more voters a voice. What if a state with a high population like California went 80% Democrat and we allowed a pure popular vote? The electoral college keeps each state soverign right to have a say in the office of the President.

 

If people get past this idea of a pure democracy which has never existed in this country they will realize why we have the electoral college.

If California went 80 percent Democratic, then I'd guess that might prompt the GOP to take a hard look at its party platform.

Why couldn't we keep a modified electoral college by allocating each state's votes by congressional district rather than winner take all?

 

So in Kentucky we have 6 congressional districts. If Hillary wins 4 and the Republican candidate wins 2, that's how the votes are divided, rather than Hillary getting all 8.

 

If we couldn't eliminate the 2 extra points for the senate seats in each state, maybe those could be given as a bonus to the overall winner of the states popular vote.

 

This methodology would spread attention across the country not just to a handful of states. And it would limit the damage caused by any voting irregularities like we saw in Florida in 2000. If there is a district that has a problem it's really only holding up 1 electoral college vote, not the votes for the entire state.

Why couldn't we keep a modified electoral college by allocating each state's votes by congressional district rather than winner take all?

 

So in Kentucky we have 6 congressional districts. If Hillary wins 4 and the Republican candidate wins 2, that's how the votes are divided, rather than Hillary getting all 8.

 

If we couldn't eliminate the 2 extra points for the senate seats in each state, maybe those could be given as a bonus to the overall winner of the states popular vote.

 

This methodology would spread attention across the country not just to a handful of states. And it would limit the damage caused by any voting irregularities like we saw in Florida in 2000. If there is a district that has a problem it's really only holding up 1 electoral college vote, not the votes for the entire state.

Your system is interesting but flawed because of gerrymandered districts. Ohio Republicans, for instance, have done a masterful job of carving up the state to maximize the GOP's advantage in congressional seats (12-4).

Is it ever?

 

I fully believe our vote as Kentuckians will never mean much when it comes to electing a President.

 

In the 11 presidential elections before 2008 Kentucky voted for the winning candidate every time. Yes, Kentucky voted for Clinton both times and for Jimmy Carter also. Up until the last two elections Kentucky was actually a good indicator state for who was going to win

The electoral college was created for a reason. We are a democratic republic made up of 50 states. We are not a pure democracy where mob rule wins.

 

It was created to allow "wise" people to choose the president and as a compromise over the disparity in suffrage between the slave-holding South and the North. Neither are there "wise" Electors choosing the president for us nor are there any needs for compromise over suffrage since it has been universally achieved.

 

Today it doesn't function anything like the "Framers" designed it to, and even they called it "faulty" (Madison) or a "contrivance" that "works badly" (Jefferson). Since it no longer works as designed and since the reasons it was designed no longer exist, there's no reason to hold any esteem or reverence for it today.

 

The only question left is this: Does it work well or not? It does not. It's a needless contrivance that allows for a handful of states to select the president for no reason other than imagined posterity.

Why couldn't we keep a modified electoral college by allocating each state's votes by congressional district rather than winner take all?

 

So in Kentucky we have 6 congressional districts. If Hillary wins 4 and the Republican candidate wins 2, that's how the votes are divided, rather than Hillary getting all 8.

 

If we couldn't eliminate the 2 extra points for the senate seats in each state, maybe those could be given as a bonus to the overall winner of the states popular vote.

 

This methodology would spread attention across the country not just to a handful of states. And it would limit the damage caused by any voting irregularities like we saw in Florida in 2000. If there is a district that has a problem it's really only holding up 1 electoral college vote, not the votes for the entire state.

A little further digging reveals your system would have handed Romney the presidency in '12 even though he still would have finished 5 million votes behind Obama.

How did you figure that?

I thought of that system (and I'm probably not the only one) after the 2000 election as a way to minimize fraud or problems in the vote counting in specific districts.

Founding Fathers were great, but I have to imagine they would never have surmised our communication and technological abilities that would make a National Election via popular vote pretty simple, and nearly impossible for their generation.

 

Anyway too much attention, money, and promises going to these split states by both parties.

This country isn't a pure democracy. A pure popular vote defeats the very principal of our Federal government and our state system.

 

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."

 

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, 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 National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It again changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

 

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

 

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in 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.

 

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy.

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

With National Popular Vote, the United States would continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

People who support pure popular vote don't understand the check and balances of our system and how it is meant to stop mob rule.

 

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.

 

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).