Posted on 05/27/2019 12:44:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
LS’s modeling, which had Trump with “300-320 electoral votes” as of AUGUST 2015, has Trump at between 310 and 320 electoral votes. I think he’ll hold every 2016 state and add NH and/or MN.
He has a shot at adding ME and NV.
Well Mr. Captain Obvious, yes you need 270 electoral college votes, a majority, to elect a President/VP. Should a Candidate not meet the required number of electoral college votes then it goes to the House of Representatives, not Congress which entails both the House and Senate. The House then chooses from the three candidates who received the most electoral college votes. The Supreme Court has no say in this.
Since you missed the point entirely, I will rephrase, starting with the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....”
The Federal Government or rather, the Supreme Court cannot step in to change this aspect unless the Constitution is changed because it is in the U.S. Constitution that states shall have exclusive control over how they apportion their EC votes. I will add, that this must be done before the day of the election.
The 270 number is not set into stone. Each state has an equal number of EC votes as it does Representatives in the House. Vacancies are another matter. A President is elected when a majority is reached. If the majority number is not reached, then the House of Representatives elect from the top three candidates who have the most EC votes. The Supreme Court and the Senate have no say in this. Since Congress is the term for both the House and Senate, the use of the phrase “goes to Congress” is wrong. As is the Supreme Court in this case.
Now that we have that squarely understood. We move on to the current movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Pact, in which 15 states have agreed to and have passed laws stating they will apportion their EC votes to the winner of the National Popular vote.
The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 15 jurisdictions possessing 189 electoral votes, including 5 small jurisdictions (RI, VT, HI, DC, DE), 6 medium- size states (MD, MA, NM, WA, CT, CO), and four big states (NJ, IL, NY, CA). The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 81 more electoral votes. The bill has passed at least one chamber in 9 additional states with 82 more electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK, OR). A total of 3,357 state legislators from all 50 states have endorsed it.
Furthermore, the shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from “winner-take-all” laws that have been enacted by state legislatures in 48 states. These laws award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state.
Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. In 2012, as shown on the map, all of the 253 general-election campaign events were in just 12 states, and two-thirds were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were completely ignored.
State winner-take-all statutes adversely affect governance. “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.
Also, because of state winner-take-all statutes, five of our 45 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide. The 2000 and 2016 elections are the most recent examples of elections in which a second-place candidate won the White House. Near-misses are also common under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. A shift of 59,393 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected John Kerry despite President Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes.
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....” The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is state law. It is not in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in 1789, and all three repealed it by 1800. It was not until the 11th presidential election (1828) that even half the states used winner-take-all laws.
The National Popular Vote interstate compact will go into effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). At that time, every voter in the country will acquire a direct vote for a group of at least 270 presidential electors supporting their choice for President. All of this group of 270+ presidential electors will be supporters of the candidate who received the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC—thus making that candidate President.
In contrast, under the current system, a voter has a direct voice in electing only the small number of presidential electors to which their state is entitled. Under NPV, every voter directly elects 270+ electors.
National Popular Vote’s Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), and Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL).
Click here for a detailed explanation of each sentence in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Bill.
Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote and at www.NationalPopularVote.com.
Learn More
Click on any of the topics below to learn more. You can also read about the numerous myths.
+ History of State Winner-Take-All Laws
+ Small States Are Ignored Under The Current State Winner-Take-All System
Here are the number of general-election presidential campaign events (between the party convention and the general election) by state for the 2008, 2012 and 2016 elections:
In 2008, only 3 of the 13 smallest states (3 or 4 electoral votes) received any of the 300 general-election campaign events. The closely divided battleground state of New Hampshire received 12 events. Maine (which awards electoral votes by congressional district) received 2 events. The District of Columbia received one event. All the other states in this group were ignored. The small states are ignored not because they are small, but because (except for New Hampshire), they are one-party states in presidential elections.
In 2008, only 7 of the 25 smallest states (7 or fewer electoral votes) received any of the general-election campaign events. New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada each received a substantial number of events (12, 7, and 12, respectively). New Mexico (a battleground state at the time) received 8 events. West Virginia and the District of Columbia received 1 event each. All the other small states in this group were ignored.
In 2012, only 1 of the 13 smallest states (3 or 4 electoral votes) received any of the 253 general-election campaign events, namely the closely divided battleground state of New Hampshire. All the other states in this group were ignored.
In 2012, only 3 of the 25 smallest states (7 or fewer electoral votes) received any of the general-election campaign events. All the other small states were ignored. The 3 states that received attention were the closely divided battleground states of New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada. All the other states in this group were ignored.
In 2016, only 2 of the 13 smallest states (3 or 4 electoral votes) received any of the 399 general-election campaign events. New Hampshire received 21 because it was a closely divided battleground state. Maine (which awards electoral votes by congressional district) received 3 campaign events because its 2nd congressional district was closely divided (and, indeed, Trump carried it). All the other states in this group were ignored.
In 2016, only 9 of the 25 smallest states (7 or fewer electoral votes) received any general-election campaign events. New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada received attention because they were closely divided battleground states. Maine and Nebraska (which award electoral votes by congressional district) received some attention, since one of their congressional districts was closely divided. New Mexico received some attention (from the Republican campaign only) because former New Mexico Governor Johnson was running for President and it appeared his strong home-state support might make the state competitive. Utah received some attention from Republicans because the McMullin candidacy might have made the state competitive. Connecticut and Mississippi also received one campaign event. All the other small states in this group were ignored.
+ 38 States Voted for Same Party in 5 Presidential Elections 2000–2016
In 2016, there were 399 general-election campaign events. Almost all campaign events (94%) were in the 12 states where Trump’s support was between 47% and 55% of the two-party vote. Two-thirds of the events (273 of 399) were in just 6 states (OH, FL, VA, NC, PA, MI).
12 battleground states in 2016 accounting for 94% of the campaign events (375 of 399)
Notes: (1) Trump percentage is of the two-party vote (2) Population is from 2010 census.
Only 2 of the 13 smallest states (with 3 or 4 electoral votes) received any of the 399 general-election campaign events. New Hampshire received 21 because it was a closely divided battleground state. Maine (which awards electoral votes by congressional district) received 3 campaign events because its 2nd congressional district was closely divided (and, indeed, Trump carried it). All the other states in this group were ignored.
Only 9 of the 25 smallest states (with 7 or fewer electoral votes) received any general-election campaign events. New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada received attention because they were closely divided battleground states. Maine and Nebraska (which award electoral votes by congressional district) received some attention since just one of their congressional districts was closely divided. New Mexico received some attention (from the Republican campaign only) because former New Mexico Governor Johnson was running for President and it appeared his strong home-state support might make the state competitive. Utah received some attention from Republicans because the McMullin candidacy might have made the state competitive. Connecticut and Mississippi also received one campaign event. All the other small states in this group were ignored.
39 spectator states in 2016 accounting for 6% of the campaign events (24 of 399)
Notes: (1) Trump percentage is of the two-party vote (2) Population is from 2010 census.
Make the Electoral College vote reflect the nationwide popular vote for President
Would have made a great addition to our hot dog fest for memorial Day....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.