Had Hillary won the Electoral College and not the "popular vote" ...

that is a deceptive answer.
you also stated..


"The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods for awarding electoral votes that were debated and rejected"

Our Constitution does reject a method that had been debated. Under the Constitution a direct national election for president can not happen.





What I have discussed and described is not a direct national election of the President.

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, in December when the Electoral College meets and votes and elects the President as they do now, will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC).
 
that is a deceptive answer.
you also stated..

"The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods for awarding electoral votes that were debated and rejected"

Our Constitution does reject a method that had been debated. Under the Constitution a direct national election for president can not happen.

Again. The National Popular Vote bill would not be a direct national election for president.

All of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states in the Electoral College in December 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 National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States."

I think this has to be one of the most absurd proposals in the history of the United States. So if my state votes for the Republican presidential candidate -- as well as many others... but lost the popular vote by a single ballot country-wide then the Democratic candidate would be president -- all driven by highly populated cities (a classic example of the tyranny of the majority which our founding fathers warned us about). Talk about an abusive system where my vote does not count and is effectively switched to the other candidate... this proposal would be the top example.

I could potential support a proposal where the EC votes of a individual state were split by the percentage voting for each candidate. For example, the 55 EC votes in California would be split between the candidates based on popular tally (for example 39 going to the Democatic candiate and 16 to the Republican candidate). This would drive EC votes to be more closely aligned with the popular vote, and allow EC representation of the "minority-party" voters in each state instead of winner take all.

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."

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.”

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

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. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

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

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

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

Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2

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

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

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

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

The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
 
I could potential support a proposal where the EC votes of a individual state were split by the percentage voting for each candidate. For example, the 55 EC votes in California would be split between the candidates based on popular tally (for example 39 going to the Democatic candiate and 16 to the Republican candidate). This would drive EC votes to be more closely aligned with the popular vote, and allow EC representation of the "minority-party" voters in each state instead of winner take all.

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC becomes President.
 
The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC becomes President.

The National Popular Vote bill is possibly the worst idea I have ever encountered in over 50 years of following U.S. election politics. I certainly hope that it quickly fades away into the oblivion it deserves.
 
The new church lady-Hillary:

Reverend-Hillary.jpg
 
and again that is separate point which I am not debating.



Again. The National Popular Vote bill would not be a direct national election for president.

All of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states in the Electoral College in December 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 population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

The blue states all have a population that's smaller than Los Angeles county. This is why we have the Electoral College. Get it?

H6YWDCb.jpg
 
Back
Top