Trump: Against the Electoral College; For National Popular Vote

[Nous]

Well, the vast majority of respondents in a variety of state surveys say that they support electing the President by national popular vote, and there is no reason to conclude that they are lying, is there?

I didn't conclude that.
But I see polling can be phrased such that people will give
answers differing from what they'd say in a different context.

Baseless fantasy.

Rephrase the question "Do you support electing the President by national popular vote?" in such a way that most Americans would answer "no".

 

[Revoltingest]

Baseless fantasy.

How ironic....a baseless objection in response.

Rephrase the question "Do you support electing the President by national popular vote?" in such a way that most Americans would answer "no".

"Would you prefer that your state give up the power of all electors voting
for one candidate by instead apportioning votes to match the popular vote?"

 

[Nous]

No... what you have offered is a different viewpoint.

The below posts of mine are full of facts. You haven't addressed, much less refuted, any of them

Just the opposite. That's why I cited a few facts in the OP about small states and the ways they are ignored by the current system. Since you have no facts that substantiate your baseless claims, you could further inform yourself by reading the information at the links I provided, e.g.:

MYTH: The small states would be disadvantaged by a national popular vote.

QUICK ANSWER:

• 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 non-competitive states in presidential elections.

• The small states are not ignored because of their low population, but because they are not closely divided battleground states. 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. • The fact that the small states are disadvantaged by the current state-by-state winner-take-all system has long been recognized by prominent officials from those states. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly small states in suing New York (then a closely divided battleground state) in the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to get state winner-take-all statutes declared unconstitutional

• 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.​

Other than these facts, it is inarguable that it is ultimately people who vote, and it is people, not states, who should be afforded equal voting power. Again, the current system subverts this, as demonstrated by professor Miller:

. . . the present winner-take-all manner of casting state electoral gives a substantial advantage to voters in the largest states . . . Direct popular election of the President uniquely maximizes and equalizes individual voting power.​

A Priori Voting Power and the U.S. Electoral College

False.

Myths about Big Cities

MYTH: Big cities, such as Los Angeles, would control a nationwide popular vote for President. QUICK ANSWER:

• Under a national popular vote, every vote would be equal throughout the United States. A vote cast in a big city would be no more (or less) valuable or controlling than a vote cast anywhere else.

• Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in California and therefore is hardly in a position to dominate a nationwide election. The fact that Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in its own state is evidenced by the fact that Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were elected Governor in recent years without ever winning Los Angeles.

• The origins of the myth about big cities may stem from the misconceptions that big cities are bigger than they actually are, and that big cities account for a greater fraction of the nation’s population than they actually do. In fact, 85% of the population of the United States lives in places with a population of fewer than 365,000 (the population of Arlington, Texas—the nation’s 50th biggest city).​

The following are the percentages of respondents in various state polls who support electing the President by national popular vote:

AK: 70%
AZ: 78%
AR: 80%
CA: 70%
CO: 68%
CT: 74%
DE: 75%
DC: 76%
ID: 77%
FL: 78%
GA: 74%
IA: 75%
KY: 80%
ME: 77%
MA: 73%
MI: 73%
MN: 75%
MS: 77%
MO: 75%
MT: 72%
NE: 74%
NV: 72%
NH: 69%
NM: 76%
NY: 79%
NC: 74%
OH: 70%
OK: 79%
OR: 76%
PA: 78%
RI: 74%
SC: 71%
SD: 75%
TN: 74%
UT: 70%
VT: 75%
WA: 77%
WV: 81%
WI: 71%
WY: 69%

The consistency in support of the national popular vote is just astounding. On what other issue can one find such agreement among Americans?

None of the 11 states that have already adopted the NPVIC (representing 61% of the needed 270 electoral votes to effectuate the compact) are battleground states.

Among the 12 additional states in which the NPVIC has been voted on and passed by one House (representing 96 more electoral votes), only 2 are battleground states.

See: National Popular Vote

It's entirely conceivable that the NPVIC will be in effect for the 2020 election (especially given that Trump was elected in 2016 without the popular vote).

In contrast, you haven't even stated a proposition yet that you can substantiate to be true.

In response to my question as to why you opposed the NPVIC, for example, you first made a comment about the electoral college giving small states "a voice". To that extent that that is a coherent claim at all, it was already refuted--candidates in recent elections do not campaign in small states, and do not spend advertising dollars in small states. Small states are the most disadvantaged states under the state-winner-take-all system because they are generally not battleground states.

It is not an ad hominem argument to point out that your claims are unconnected to reality, have no basis in fact.

 

[Nous]

"Would you prefer that your state give up the power of all electors voting
for one candidate by instead apportioning votes to match the popular vote?"

That isn't a rephrasing of the question, "Do you support electing the President by national popular vote?"--even if anyone could figure out what your question is supposed to mean. Electing the President by national popular vote does not entail "your state giving up the power of all electors voting for one candidate".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for reading and understanding more about the NPVIC. I wish more people would follow your example (on all matters).

I've just now tried to do a little more reading and understanding of the case law concerning interstate compacts. In recent decades the Court has several times reaffirmed, and expounded upon, its holding in Virginia v. Tennessee with respect to Congressional approval of interstate compacts. In US Steel v. Multi-state Tax Commission (1978), the Court restated its holding in New Hampshire v. Maine (1976), in which an agreement between states is not a compact that requires Congressional approval if the agreement does not tend to increase the political power of the states so as to threaten the supremacy of the federal government. Importantly, in Multi-state Tax, petitioners specifically asked the Court to abandon its precedent that not all interstate agreements or compacts require Congressional approval. The Court stuck with its precedent, and further clarified that when states form a compact or agreement to do something that they have the power to do on their own, it does not tend to increase the states' power such that it may encroach upon federal power (and therefore the compact does not need Congressional approval).

It is clearly within any state's power to direct the appointment of electors who have all agreed to vote for the candidate who gets the most votes in the state, or, alternatively, who have each agreed to vote for the candidate who gets the most votes in particular assigned districts, as Maine and Nebraska currently do. As noted above, it wasn't until well into the 19th century that any state appointed electors who voted for the candidate who got the most votes in the entire state. States are exercising this same power when they appoint their electors who agree to vote for the winner of the national popular vote. Thus, the NPVIC is merely an agreement between states to exercise this power that each state may exercise on its own.

It seems one couldn't come up with a simpler, more direct argument for the constitutionality of a non-Congressionally-approved interstate compact. Nevertheless, given the overwhelming support among the electorate for electing the President by national popular vote, I think it would be a slightly dangerous decision for a member of Congress to vote against approving it or otherwise refuse to approve it (such as a committee chair or the Speaker refusing to bring it for a vote).

You mentioned above that the NPVIC would face a long battle in the courts if enough states enacted it to go into effect. But presumably what will happen is that enough states will enact it to effectuate it, and if Congress doesn't give its approval, the electors in those member states will vote for the winner of the national popular vote in the next election--which, in most elections, would be the winner of the ordinary state-winner-take-all electoral vote anyway. But, even without changing what would be the ultimate outcome of the ordinary electoral college vote, it could easily be a situation such as noted above about California, where the winner of the national popular vote is the Republican candidate, but the Democratic candidate got the most votes in California. Some Californian would surely challenge the constitutionality of the NPVIC then, and the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such matters, and could quickly issue a per curiam--although, as it wouldn't change the ultimate outcome of the election in this scenario, it wouldn't be an emergency such as happened in 2000 where the antique Justices have to be roused out of bed and made to decide the case before December 16th or whatever the date is.

On the other hand, it could be a situation in which whether California's electoral votes go to the Republican or Democratic candidate would determine the winner of the national election, and, with California's electors abiding by the non-Congressionally-approved NPVIC and giving their votes to the Republican candidate rather than to the Democratic winner of the state, the NPVIC would immediately be challenged. So the Court would have to rule on the constitutionality of the compact before the December cut-off date. It wouldn't be a long drawn-out case, and there seems to be nothing equivocal in the case law about when Congressional approval is required for an interstate compact. The lawyers for the state would begin and end their defense with the argument that the NPVIC does not entail that a state do anything with respect to its appointment of electors that states cannot ordinarily do on their own, therefore Congressional approval is not required.

I just haven't been able to find any case law by which a plaintiff or court would even begin to argue that a non-Congressionally-approved NPVIC is an unconstitutional exercise of a state's power.

Although several of the states where it has passed one House presumably have large portions of Republicans (e.g., Arkansas).

My statement about it fighting a losing battle in the courts was based upon my misunderstanding of the NPVIC. Now that I understand that it is merely the states that agree to participate assigning their electoral votes as they wish as a bloc I do not see a constitutional problem with the compact. Good luck, and I mean that in a positive way, with getting this concept enacted.

 

[Nous]

Had the tables turned and Hillary won, most respondents would be in favor of the electoral process

Prove it.

 

[Nous]

My statement about it fighting a losing battle in the courts was based upon my misunderstanding of the NPVIC. Now that I understand that it is merely the states that agree to participate assigning their electoral votes as they wish as a bloc I do not see a constitutional problem with the compact. Good luck, and I mean that in a positive way, with getting this concept enacted.

Got it.

But I think it will be challenged, especially if something like the scenarios with California happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Got it.

But I think it will be challenged, especially if something like the scenarios with California happen.

I am fairly sure that it will be challenged, regardless. But I do not think that it will be a losing proposition now. Though the challenges may still keep this off the books for the 2020 election. I would say that the days of the electoral college may be numbered. If this does get passed and put into effect then the opposition to a Constitutional amendment getting rid of the electoral college may all but disappear.

EDIT: By the way, I do try to be reasonable and will change my mind when I see an error. There are other examples of this in my past. Sadly I find far too many people at forums that simply will not listen to reason or give the opposition a fair shake.

 

[Kenny]

Baseless fantasy.

Rephrase the question "Do you support electing the President by national popular vote?" in such a way that most Americans would answer "no".

After Trump was elected who won by Electoral College

 

[Kenny]

Prove it.

Prove that you would have made better decisions if you knew yesterday what you know today.

 

[Revoltingest]

That isn't a rephrasing of the question, "Do you support electing the President by national popular vote?

Not a re-phrasing?
Wow.

 

[Akivah]

...if the election were based on national popular vote, he would have campaigned in Florida, New York and California.

No matter what method we have, someone will feel slighted. As you yourself pointed out, if we change the Constitution and eliminate the Electoral system, presidential candidates will concentrate their efforts on the four biggest states and ignore everyone else. The large states will be the new battleground states.

The fact is that electing the President by national popular vote would undoubtedly result is much greater turnout than the current system, given that the majority of Americans live in states where they know beforehand which candidate will receive their state's electoral votes. This foreknowledge can only discourage people from taking the time and trouble of standing in line on election day to cast an unnecessary ballot for either the sure-fire winner or looser in that state.

I don't see that your desired change will guarantee a larger voter turnout. All that will happen is voters won't turnout at different places. I.e. no one in small states like DE or WY will bother turning up to vote.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No matter what method we have, someone will feel slighted. As you yourself pointed out, if we change the Constitution and eliminate the Electoral system, presidential candidates will concentrate their efforts on the four biggest states and ignore everyone else. The large states will be the new battleground states.

They would get more attention, but a candidate would be more than foolish to ignore the rest of the nation. As it is there are almost no events in the small states, that will not change in this case.

I don't see that your desired change will guarantee a larger voter turnout. All that will happen is voters won't turnout at different places. I.e. no one in small states like DE or WY will bother turning up to vote.

Why do you make that claim? Without an electoral college the vote of a person in Wyoming has just as much power as a vote by an individual in California. Now there are quite a few people that are bad at math that might not realize this. Winning the battleground states will hardly matter by a small majority will hardly matter if the other candidate wins the non-battleground states with a large majority when one goes by popular vote.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

See the Explanation page here: Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

That's a pretty ingenuous solution. It doesn't have as much permanence as a constitutional amendment, but it does move us towards a better situation IMHO. If enough states join the pact then you will have a de facto national vote and it will make a constitutional amendment that much easier to pass.

Part of the reasoning behind the electoral college is that it was meant to be a fail safe in case an entirely unfit person was elected to office. However, very few electors have gone against their own state votes and many electors have no choice. It is an outdated and ineffective process that has outlived its purpose. A national office should be awarded by a national vote, and it is time to get rid of the electoral college.

 

[totototo]

A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

 

[totototo]

No matter what method we have, someone will feel slighted. As you yourself pointed out, if we change the Constitution and eliminate the Electoral system, presidential candidates will concentrate their efforts on the four biggest states and ignore everyone else. The large states will be the new battleground states.


I don't see that your desired change will guarantee a larger voter turnout. All that will happen is voters won't turnout at different places. I.e. no one in small states like DE or WY will bother turning up to vote.

Of COURSE voters will turn out in small states. It's not about state size.

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 4 jurisdictions.

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.

With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 12 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 70-80% of the country that is conceded months in advance 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.

A national popular vote could increase down-ballot voter turnout during presidential election years.

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.


Voters in the minority in non-battleground states, red or blue, are cheated in every presidential election.

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.

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone 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) alone 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).

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.

 

[totototo]

Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 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 terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included 7 states that have voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 states have 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.

 

[totototo]

In polls by National Popular Vote, voters were asked
"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?"

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.

NationalPopularVote.com

 

[totototo]

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."

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 presidency.

 

[totototo]

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 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?"