The fact that you were personally satisfied with the outcomes isn’t something you should be taking into consideration when deciding how the electoral system operates. Not least because that might change one day.

@InternetDorkWeb The fact that I was satisfied is irrelevant to the point. Just extra data...

The Electoral College worked as it was intended and needs to continue to do-so.

“The founding fathers knew what they were doing” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument though.

What are the actual reasons for an electoral college?

" a handful of states cannot reasonably be expected to understand the needs and dictate policy for the rest of the country."

I don't believe Trump lost the popular vote among legal citizens of the United States and this is why I want to throw out every criminal who is here illegally and coming to our country illegally is a crime - they are all criminals.

@InternetDorkWeb To protect states rights. To ensure equal representation for all states at the Federal level. I live in Colorado and if we lose the electoral college it will mean California will own all our water.

It gives dense population centers (ie. CA, NY) the power to override the rights and laws of all other states. We live in a Democratic Republic - not a Democracy and the democrats are fond of saying.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.

@jhaste It is not a handful of states making the decision though, it’s everyone who has the right to vote regardless of their location. And as I pointed out above, you are already in the position where a small number of states dictate the outcome of the election.

@urso What you believe is irrelevant, where is the evidence about illegal voting?

California certainly would not own the water in Colorado if there was a popular vote, that’s just blatant scaremongering. And you do live in a democracy... just a not very democratic one!

@InternetDorkWeb It's a balance of power across the states. Simple as that... And, no... It is not a true democracy, intentionally, by design.

If you want equal representation by population, look to the House. They create legislation, or at least they are supposed to...

@urso It's interesting to note that Hillary Clinton didn't win the majority of the popular vote either, due to the of people who voted third party. For example, I voted third party, although if I had to choose I would have voted against Hillary (and therefore, for Trump).

@InternetDorkWeb Please look for a mention of the word "democracy" in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. I would be very surprised if you could find a single mention of it in any founding document where it is cast in a good light. The founders believed it be the tyranny of the mob, and always ending in blood.

@jhaste Well the balance of power between the states is disproportionately in those where the number of republicans is approximately equal the number of democrats. If you live in a state which os dominated by one party then you have no real say in the outcome of elections. No-one has yet addressed this point, because there is no satisfactory argument against it.

Furthermore as the President is one person, he should be elected by a majority. This is not true of the house. There are many people in the house, who are supposed to represent the views of all Americans, and so should be voted proportionally.

The main parties have got you guys whipped pretty well, I think, to make you so strongly opposed to your own emancipation. Remember how Trump was going to “drain the swamp”?

Newsflash, that will absolutely never happen without massive electoral reform, because your entire political system is dominated by two parties who would sooner work together than allow anything to change the status quo.

@cautiousdreamer Hillary did win the majority of the popular vote, she perhaps didn’t win more than 50% of the vote (maybe).

This demonstrates the problem with having a “president” in the first place... plurality is impossible. But since that’s unavoidable (short of getting rid of the president entirely) the fairest thing is to make it a simple majority.

@psykozen I am not concerned whether these documents contain the word democracy, because whether they do or not, the fact remains that America is a democracy.

I also don’t care about arguments from authority. The founding fathers were a lot of things, but infallible is not one of them, and the reliance on them for arguments against reform suggests you don’t have any real arguments to maintain the present system.

@InternetDorkWeb your wrong and sadly many misinformed people like you may wind up screwing the country

@InternetDorkWeb
Majority = More than half of all votes
Plurality = More votes than anyone else, but not more than half.
My point is not so much the exact word used, but that Clinton didn't win half of the votes either.

@InternetDorkWeb It's clear that you don't understand the Constitution or the history behind why it is written the way it's written, and that's fine.

But at the end of the day, equal power among the states IS the Constitution and to change that requires the States (with equal power) to vote to take away their own power. So, this discussion is pointless.

So how about you draft up a resolution for amendments. Here's how you can do it:

• 2/3 House agree
• 2/3 Senate agree
• 3/4 of the States agree

Let me know how that works out for you...

@urso What precisely am I wrong about, and why?

If you don’t explain what my mistakes are, then I can never learn from them.

The bill would NOT eliminate the EC.

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.

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.

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.

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

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.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 37 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), Delaware (3), and New Mexico (5).

[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.

@InternetDorkWeb in point of fact, we do NOT life in a democracy, we live in a REPUBLIC. Learn the difference.

@Ronnif1 There is nothing mutually exclusive about the two. America is a democracy, and it is a republic.

Stop watching Steven Crowder.

@InternetDorkWeb You are incorrect. The U.S. is a representative republic, not a democracy. If you are unsure of the difference, I suggest you do some research....

@SCYankee A representative republic is still a democracy...

You don’t have to be an absolute democracy to still be a democracy.

@urso i agree with all but one point. Actually it's more of a lack of understanding on my part that maybe you can help clear up. What exactly is the democratic part of a republic? That term has always perplexed me lol

@Tommy6915 we choose our representatives in the House (as in the peoples House) and the Senate by voting for them democratically.

@urso Gotcha. And if memory serves, we didn't originally vote for the senate did we? Is that the crux of it? The senate vote?

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

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.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 37 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), Delaware (3), and New Mexico (5).

@otto , now you're talking about something completely different than the OP. Eliminating the EC and modifying the way the Electoral Votes are distributed are two completely different things.

@otto dear Lord, would you PLEASE stop reposting this entire thing in your every response? We get it. We've read it the first 3 times. It seems as though this is your entire argument..... and are unable to come up with an original thought or response to someone else's statement.

@Ronnif1 Hear hear!

It would be galactically stupid to allow non-citizens or illegals to vote. What's to stop an outside influence from changing the wishes of actual citizens, and doing things that will undermine our sovereignty as a nation?

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 .”

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."

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

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.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 37 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), Delaware (3), and New Mexico (5).
The bill has been enacted by 12 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 172 electoral votes – 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

Which actually proves my point, the only time the popular vote over Electoral college comes into play is if your candidate loses.

@otto TRUMP makes phom errors BIGLY. Aspects I'm glad about but Man. I want someone new smart environmentally oriented etc blah etc...

@otto why is Trump such a quotable sort when his foolish voice echoes your own? It seems a lot of people only find the ability to support his position when it makes him the fool or agrees with their side.... Let us agree here and now... Trump has said more foolish things, as well as stretching the truth as much as any politician who might come to mind... and I have little use for him... but he is doing what he said he would... and half the nation agrees with him... even if he is no word smith...

@otto And all illegal. Outside the Constitution and not allowed. The day the Electoral college is done away with is when the US will become a dictatorship. And the hte day the 3rd American civil war will start.

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.”

[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.

One can hope.

The Electoral College would continue to elect the President.

In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

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.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 37 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), Delaware (3), and New Mexico (5).

@otto , now you're talking about something completely different than the OP. Eliminating the EC and modifying the way the Electoral Votes are distributed are two completely different things.

The National Popular Vote bill IS the movement. People continually do not describe it accurately. It would not eliminate the EC.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 37 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 12 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 172 electoral votes – 64% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

Diminishing States rights is in direct conflict of founding principles.

Our country has been so unified and stable for so long, we forget the danger of disunion. Deletion of the electoral college would result in the highly populated states setting all policies, the low population states would then reject Federal rules and try to leave (either formally or informally)

Look at the troubles they are having in Europe, with Brexit, endless Yellow Vest marches in France, nationalist movements in Hungary and Germany, etc. It's hard to build and maintain a continent-wide political order.

The electoral college prevents low-population states from being bullied, and in doing so keeps the country united.

@CautiousDreamer

Contrary the reports you are seeing, Europe is actually fairly prosperous and united at the moment. There are some questions about the role of the European Union, but aside from the United Kingdom there is no appetite for any country leave.

The UK of course is almost at the deadline but may well end up staying in due internal political deadlock. The majority leave was very small and the political appetite for it is limited. The economic and political costs of leaving have now been made clear, and people are deeply unsatisfied with them.

Not mention the fact that Brexit could perhaps have been avoided had the UK used a more proportional electoral system in the first place, rather than have the tories concede to the demands of their internal fringe groups and UKIP.

Low population states are not protected from “bullying” by larger states. They are equally deprived of a fair say in the current system, because the only thing that matters is how one-sided the contest is.

@InternetDorkWeb Well, It's clear that you do not understand how or why the Constitution is written the way it is written. Republican / Democrat and their roles is irrelevant. The power is equal to each State, plain and simple, end of story, regardless of population of those states. That is ingrained within the Constitution repeatedly for the purposes of unification and preservation of the union.

It's unfortunate that you don't seem to grasp that simple fact. The good thing is, changing the Constitution also provides equal power among the states.

And you say that the EU is stable. Guess what? The US is stable as well... We have one political party, supported by main stream media, jumping up and down screaming Socialism and proposing all of these radical constitutional changes, causing people to freak out but at the end of the day, it's not going to happen.

You clearly do not understand the government, division of power and their purposes. You're saying it's one sided, but it is never one sided, the way it is designed. There are two divisions at the Legislative and the Executive, then Judicial has 9 seats for a majority to make the ruling. It's multi-faceted to PREVENT it from being one-sided, EVER.

Again, equal power among the states IS the Constitution and to change that requires the States (with equal power) to vote to take away their own power. So, this discussion is pointless.

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).

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

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.

The bill would not delete the EC.

Now, 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.

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).

@CautiousDreamer your country has not been "unified" for a long time.

@otto, now you're talking about something completely different than the OP. Eliminating the EC and modifying the way the Electoral Votes are distributed are two completely different things.

I'd have to dig into the distribution a bit closer but, in a two candidate race, if a state has 6 electoral votes and one candidate gets 50.0001% of the vote or even 1 popular vote more than the other, that candidate gets 4 of those votes and the other gets 2 (NOT 3/3). You can't cast a partial vote and it must be an accurate reflection of the state vote.

California's 2016, for example:

• Clinton - 34 Votes
• Trump - 18 Votes
• Johnson - 2 Votes
• Stein - 1 Votes
• La Riva - 0 Votes

I "might" be able to get behind that, but I think it will end up being basically the same thing.

@jhaste How can the power be equal to each state possibly be equal when the number of electoral college votes they receive depends on population?

And in practice it is absolutely the case that whether or not the contest is one sided affects the outcome. There is very little chance of the Republicans winning in California, because they are so heavily outnumbered by democrats. Whether these Republicans bother to vote or not is irrelevant because even if they all turn up, it won’t make California Republican.

Contrast this with Florida or any other swing state, where the decision to vote or not will actually have a significant impact on the outcome of not only the local race, but the country as a whole.

This is why anyone who is outside a swing and isn’t voting for the main party in their state is effectively disenfranchised, because their vote means nothing. This reality is reflected in the campaign time spent in swing states, as well as where money is spent. Nobody is spending campaign money in Alabama or Massachusetts. But they’ll pander to you in Ohio or North Carolina.

This is not a problem limited to the united states either, it’s inherent to first past the post voting systems. So please spare me your rhetoric about the constitution or the founding fathers, and address the facts on the ground instead.

And if you sincerely do think it’s the best system, at least have the courage to defend it yourself, instead of relying on dead men to do it for you.

@InternetDorkWeb, you're not paying attention and you are exhausting.

The facts stand as, it is the Constitution which IS the law of the land and I defend it on it's own merit. I don't need anything more than that. Dead guys or not...

You're not changing my mind with your argument and I do not have time or patience to convince someone from the Czech Republic why it works. Maybe someone else does but I have a feeling it's a pointless exercise.

If you're still talking about eliminating the EC, you have to change the Constitution. Propose your amendment(s) and follow the process:

• 2/3 House agree
• 2/3 Senate agree
• 3/4 of the States agree

Your proposal will fail, miserably and your argument, again, becomes irrelevant.

@jhaste - The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

"The government" is not pushing anything.

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

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.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 37 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), Delaware (3), and New Mexico (5).
The bill has been enacted by 12 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 172 electoral votes – 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

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."

@otto i have to disagree that there is not a push by the Deep state. What is the Deep state? Until you understand this everything is is a distraction or a small issue.
I'm from Jewish background and Zionism is the problem in our government and Hollywood controls the masses though movie's music ect. Research the 13 bloodlines who rule the world the teaching of Zionism and pizzagate Deprogramingtheholocaust is a good site as well. Sometimes the unbelievable is the truth

@Gerri4321 the deep state is conspiracy... the attempt to explain a complex issue with a simple answer...

@Toto i have to disagree, after over 2500 hrs. ( yes I'm lucky to have that time) of reseach the deep state as it's call is very real. But it's diff. Then you may think, it is a web of interlocking gov. From around the world who use mafia tactics to control everything. A satanic cult of pedophile's who do preform human sacurfice mostly children.
Yes i know i sound crazy/ tin foil hat crazy, but I'm telling the truth.
There are two groups owned by satan one is islam the other is Zoinist. They both worship satan and want world domination. NWO.
Reseach the 13 bloodlines that rule the world. If you don't know of Q you should.
Before you tell me i need help understand i have heard it all.
[spingola.com]

@Gerri4321 I once spent a pleasant afternoon drinking coffee with a gentleman who was convinced that 9/11 was an inside job... he had studied it at length (almost at the level of a full time job)... he had more circular references proving the validity of his point than any I have seen outside Facebook followers of "marijuana cures everything" ...but the fact is, he had many basic misconceptions and more than a few claims that most would consider far out at the least.... my point.. if you point to a complex problem and it has a simple answer... you (and others) are likely building that answer on invalid information and constructs.....

@Toto a cia officers death bed confession was that 9/11 was a inside job. Many believe it was. My research includes more then the internet and I'm very confident I'm right as well as many other's are in high places. My job as i see it is to help other's see the truth. If they choice not to explore the possibility that's their choice.

@otto there is so much to comment on in this, but i'll stick to 2 things. First, the fact that a candidate who wins the "popular vote" and loses the election does NOT undermine the electoral system, it is a testimony that it is working as intended. Second, we are NOT a democracy, never were, and should not ever be. We are a REPUBLIC. The electoral college helps to ensure we are never governed by mob rule (democracy).

"Democrats" are not pushing or only at this point in time.

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."

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

Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

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),

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

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.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 37 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), Delaware (3), and New Mexico (5).

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, much less “rule the country.”

In total New York state, Illinois, and California cast 20% 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.

More Republicans and Democrats in Texas, and more Republicans in California would vote if individual vote tallies actually mattered in their home state

More people register to vote and do vote when they know their vote matters.

If you're a Republican voter in a blue state or a Democratic voter in a red state, your vote for president doesn't matter to your candidate.

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 then 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

In 2016, in battleground states, turnout hit 65%, 5 points higher than in non-battleground states.

@otto Well then it is a good thing that President Trump does not get to make this decision.

All of these examples of people who are in favor of a popular vote and yet the majority of our leaders were wise enough to keep it in place. Your examples only serve to strengthen my opinion that the EC is necessary.

I suggest this video.

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.

I'm trying to see how this helps all votes be considered. So correct me if I am misunderstanding but the way it sounds to me is that the electoral votes of a particular state would be given to who ever wins the popular vote nationwide. IE if your state voted for candidate A but the national popular vote was for candidate B your states electoral votes would go to candidate B.
So how does this help everyone's concerns being addressed?

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 and 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.

@otto yea, there would be a few "battleground cities" and that would be even worse.

Perhaps a compromise would be to divide the electoral votes percentage to reflect how a particular state voted, so if it was a 40-60 split and your state has 10 electoral votes, then 4 would go to one candidate and 6 to the other.

This still doesn't allow for third parties gaining ground though, and I would rather see MORE parties and MORE ideas out there, rather than just the duopoly we have now, especially since the regressive left is trying to make it one voice/party by shutting down conservative speech, or anyone who disagrees with their ideology, even other liberals. I'm truly terrified of them because they are so authoritarian. I was on the far left my entire life, but it wasn't authoritarian back then. It's so strange to watch what's happening now on the left, I feel like I'm in a mirror universe or something.

It also bothers me that people who are here illegally are illegally voting, and I think this is why the left is so against having any kind of ID verification to vote. You need an ID to do almost everything in this country. I don't know why anyone wouldn't have one.