Posted on 02/15/2014 6:14:40 AM PST by LD Jackson
The battleground states are where the votes have changed from cycle to cycle because of demographic changes.
I ask you again, why do you insist that each election must be a sports event where the score starts at 0-0? What is wrong with states having made their minds up? If the people of those states don't change, and if they pass their family values down to their children, then why do you see this as a problem that must be corrected by forcing those states to be competitive when they don't want to be?
They already know what candidate they want, and the candidate already knows what the state wants.
Now, if you want to take your scheme to the primary races where the later voting states have truly less influence in choosing their party's candidates, I'm open to suggestions.
-PJ
Each district’s vote count is the fairest way to decide an election. It mattes not, whether a third, fourth, or fifth party has the most votes. That is the will of the district/people.
I disagree that it compounds the problems of the EC. Each district would be speaking loudly and clearly and I believe, more people would vote if they thought their vote actually counted. That is the true will of the people.
Popular vote will never be fair. Miami, Orlando, and Tampa/St. Petersburg should not be able to decide who gets Florida’s electoral votes. I’ll never go along with that!
My Congressman should be able to cast a vote FOR HIS DISTRICT.
Popular vote will be the death knell for conservative voters. Too much voter fraud goes on for that to ever be considered, Besides, liberals favor popular vote......they know they benefit the most.
“Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.”
You keep claiming this as though it’s fact, when any farmer, if forced to choose, would harvest where the crop is most dense. Voter wise, that is in the big cities.
So Joaklahoma no longer wishes to be a factor in any presidential election?
Bizzare!
Why should they bother to vote at all then?
Have your brain re-attached soon.
With the current state winner-take-all method in Florida, the winner of Florida’s vote gets Florida’s electoral votes.
With National Popular Vote, the candidate with the most votes in the Country, decides who wins the presidency.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
About 88% of districts are non-competitive and would be ignored with a district winner system. Many are heavily gerrymandered.
In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. A smaller fraction of the country’s population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 20%) that now get overwhelming attention, while 80% of the states are ignored
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
“In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, the Republican nominee still managed to carry nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts. If the by-district scheme had been in place for that election, Romney would have collected nine of Michigan’s 16 electoral votes — not enough to change the national result, but enough to make Michigan a net win for Romney, notwithstanding his decisive drubbing in the statewide election.” – Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press, Jan. 12, 2014
Congressmen are not electors.
Electors are apportioned to each state and the District of Columbia. The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. In total, there are 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 senators, and the three additional electors from the District of Columbia. - Wikipedia
A second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district winner method.
Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.
A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***
A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
A national popular vote 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 in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
Voters in non-battleground states do not want to be ignored and politically irrelevant in presidential elections.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. 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. 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 Gallup polls since 1944, 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 (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That’s more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.” [only 10 in 2012]
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”
The winner-take-all rule adversely affects governance. Sitting Presidents (whether contemplating their own re-election or the election of their preferred successor) pay inordinate attention to the interests of “battleground” states.
# “Battleground” states receive over 7% more grants than other states.
# “Battleground” states receive 5% more grant dollars.
# A “battleground” state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations as an uncompetitive state.
# The locations of Superfund enforcement actions also reflect a state’s battleground status.
# Federal exemptions from the No Child Left Behind law have been characterized as “‘no swing state left behind.”
The effect of the current winner-take-all system on governance is discussed at length in Presidential Pork by Dr. John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter equal, and every vote counting for the candidate for whom it was cast, 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. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) 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 Oklahoma, or for a Republican to try it in Oklahoma 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.
Oklahoma, and 80% of states, are not factors in presidential elections under the current system.
A vote in Oklahoma or any of the non-competitive states is irrelevant in presidential elections.
In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.
In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.
If presidential campaigns now did not ignore more than 200,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.
What kind of a crap school did you go to?
I was taught in grammer school that democracy was the worst form of government ever devised!
this is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy!!!
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.
I’m sorry, but you lost me at the President Gore post...
You are wasting your time. Popular vote is fine for class president, not for US president....never....this is not a democracy. THANK GOODNESS.
Voters in states where they are the minority opinion feel that their vote is wasted. If they can't make it count within their state, they want to force it to count on a national level. People in the minority in a state want to take away the state's choice, because they don't like being on the losing side.
You refuse to accept that choosing the president is a state-by-state power in the Constitution. You want the people-at-large to override the states because conservatives in blue states and liberals in red states feel that their votes don't count.
They do count, but there just aren't enough of them in the state to be the prevailing state opinion. You really do want to do away with the whole notion of states entirely, because you feel that it's not fair that someone can't convince others in their local community to vote like they do.
Good luck with that.
-PJ
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.