Americans vs. the Electoral College [Infographic]
By Jane Susskind | 07/01/2012 | Electoral Reform, Featured | 57 CommentsSince it’s creation in the 18th century, the Electoral College has acted as the unchanging process in which the most powerful office of the United States Federal Government is elected; the president. America, however, has been rapidly changing, evolving, and growing, calling into question the relevancy of a two hundred year old process in modern day politics.
Most recently highlighted by the 2000 election, in which George W. Bush won the presidency but lost the popular vote, Americans are again starting to take interest in reforming the Electoral College system in favor of a more proportionate one.
The most recent Gallup poll on the issue reveals that even 11 years after Bush v. Gore, Americans are still concerned about the way in which we elect our president, with 62% saying they would amend the U.S. Constitution to replace the Electoral College with a poplar vote system.
Here’s an infographic from GOOD with the background of the Electoral College, along with the alternatives. Are you a fan of the Electoral College? Or would you favor reforming the process?
![americans vs the electoral college infographic 50600 Americans vs. the Electoral College [Infographic]](http://ivn.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/americans-vs-the-electoral-college-infographic-50600.jpg?36ddaa "Americans vs. the Electoral College [Infographic]")
Leave Your Comment →
57 Comments
oldgulph
07.02.2012
@oldgulph
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the primaries.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
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). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
GFunk
07.04.2012
The U.S.A. is NOT a democracy, but a republic with a republican form of government. It is sad to see so many people ignorant to how, why and what our system is set up to be! A popular vote is NOT less corruptable at all and we are protected against mob rule with OUR representive Republic. Especially these days where the majority of sheeple still get their news from cable tv!!! Only for those of you who ONLY vote in the presidential election claim that you need a popular vote. Why don’t you vote locally as your most important voting because in OUR Representative Republic the local representatives we elect are the most important. EX: Just look up how our delegates are picked for the presidential races at the precincts, districts, county and state levels. If you want a great example of how our system IS supposed to work look at the Ron Paul people who have used the system the way it’s suppoded to be used. Our system has NOT been used correctly for many many years now but it is still their for the people willing to do the foot work and NOT be lazy people who are just too opiniative and ONLY vote in the presidential elections!!! People are just so uneducated about the system they will even try to say that Ron Paul is cheating because they are so ignorant to our system or just purposely misguiding the people! The only reason we have so much corruption right now is becuase the people in power for a while have been able to keep the people ignorant on how and why our system works AGAINST tyrrany and tyrrany of the majority! All you need to do is get educated on how our system REALLY works and vote locally as your most important votes, not just the presidential elections every 4 years for ort “emporer and chief”.
spiritsplice
07.02.2012
Popular vote, i.e. mob rule.
oldgulph
07.02.2012
@oldgulph
The National Popular Vote bill ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under the current system, there is disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.”
There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party’s dedicated activists.
GFunk
07.04.2012
The U.S.A. is NOT a democracy, but a republic with a republican form of government.
Their are a lot of scary and ignorant comments here. We are NOT a democracy … we are a representative republic. It’s so sad to see so many people here ignorant of what our system is, let alone of how it works! But I do admit the schools never taught us how our system works and use the word democracy way too much without defining it! Pure democracy would have the popular vote like ancient greece, which had plenty of corruption. We have a representative republic to protect our republic from mob rule of the popular vote for a good reason! This is NOT outdated at all, it’s just people who are clueless to history and how and why our system works spew this nonsense. Their can be corruption in every form of democracy including a representative republic but to try and say that a popular vote would mean less corruption is not only ignorant it is dangerous, especially these days with so many sheeple and cable tv! All we have to do is find out how are system really works and work harder at a local level to elect representatives who truly represent us and our localities. Most people commenting act like the most important vote is the presidential vote because they think we are supposed to have an “emporer and chief”. So please people get informed, get involved locally and please find out why a representative republic was set up by our forefathers!!!
Robert
07.03.2012
As opposed to the plutocracy which now rules?
Robert
07.03.2012
REFORM!!!! It’s an antiquated system that has no valid place in modern society.
Rebecca Syma
07.03.2012
The electoral vote MUST remain in place… the election polls are now rigged and the computerized machines have been not giving fair count and with George Sauros or whatever way that crooks name is spelled… (getting insider information on loans to countries from Barack Obama… SHAME ON THE PRESIDENT!!!) owning or having interest in fifteen (15) count them sates to count the election votes it stinks to high heaven and there is something rotten in America, it is in Washington D.C. and emitting from the White House!! OMG Obama Must Go!!!! Audit the Fed and then End the Fed; Bring Our Troops Home You Liar! Restore the Constitution and we need less government in our daily lives not more! Gary Johnson is the only nominee with the interest of the American people in mind for ruling the USA the next four years. We need a true conservative in the White House not some one just using the words and not understanding or following through on campaign promises.
danihale
07.03.2012
@danihale
Yes, it is time for the thinking and informed public to make this decision not the Electoral College.
GFunk
07.04.2012
If the majority of constituentseverywhere were thinking or informed do you really think our country would be in the economic and moral mess were in today?
Please get real!
People are waking up from the ignorance but obviously not nearly fast enough!
paul knopp
07.03.2012
I think it should be popular vote this electorial collage thing why should some states votes count moe than others?I bet a lawyer or politician came up with this. Let the people decide
justin hapka
07.03.2012
Voted Bush, but the current system is outdated and flawed. All the reasons, everyone, for setting up the electorial college is bi longer relevant……and if I hear one more person tell me its not possible to cacualte the popular vote I will hit someone. IT IS CURRENTLY CALCULATED! I live in NewYork, rarely does my vote “count.” My federal issues and concerns differ from my next door neighbors and my vote should reflect my position on the issues. Federal votes should have a one person fed count per person…I can not think of any logic thaf would negate my position. WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY, I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE THINKING WE DO. IT IS A REPUBLIC, AND REPUBLICS IN ANY FORM ARE CORRUPT……1 KING THOUSANDS OF MILES FOR NOW 1000′S OF KINGS A MILE AWAY.
TEST TEST
07.03.2012
test
Nick Tripoli
07.03.2012
Popular vote.
Stephen Lumpkin
07.03.2012
Very important issue. Here in Arizona, we will be filing a case in court to try to change the rules about the Electoral College Votes.
The Electoral College here has nothing bind the electors by law to actually cast thier vote for who we choose. They can pick Charles Manson if they like. Many States have this issue.
Laura Tyler
07.03.2012
Reform
Kent Schisler
07.03.2012
The Electoral College is the way the Elite can be elected, even when they don’t get the most votes, right? (BUSH vs GORE in 2000, in Jeb BUSH’s Florida) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_(paper)
Paul Robin Cook
07.03.2012
So… Do we really want New York, California, Texas, and Florida to choose our President? Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and most of the other states would never mean anything to a presidential candidate.
justin hapka
07.03.2012
Are you serious? If you illiminate the electorial vote, states would not be a factor. I live in New York, no way in hell I will vote Obama, I support Paul….. but w/o the electorial college I have the opportunity to vote FOR someone not against them. People a mile from my house, people on my street, people in my home all have different federal concerns—–it is no longer reqional, the economy is much more complex—…unless ofcourse you fear losing Democratic votes, but that would just be my seculkatuion that you are a disillusioned socialist
oldgulph
07.03.2012
@oldgulph
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and most of the other states NOW do not mean anything to a presidential candidate.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the primaries.
In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that 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.
Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, 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).
James L. Hill
07.03.2012
The Electoral system fails all Americans it is a puppet prop …and yet the Media makes everyone think their vote count ..how stupid the trolls are and they just laugh ,,,makes me want to cry.
Casey G. Little
07.03.2012
Mr. Cook, I do not understand how a popular vote for president would provide those largest states of our country any more power than they enjoy today under the electoral system. I am not trolling or trying to be a smart elleck. I truly don’t see the difference.
justin hapka
07.03.2012
He said it out of fear of losing Democratic electorial votes.
Jack Bruce
07.03.2012
If you are ready to see Wyoming, New Mexico and most of rural population states totally ignored in presidential elections–campaign for the popular vote being the method of election. The urban areas will run the nation politically and economically–the republic will cease to be and democracies have never survived long on this planet. Read your world history books and then decide if you want to promote a pure democracy where the majority vote rules the land. You won’t like it much. Yep, the nation has changed but Franklin was right when queried about what had been created. He replied, “A republic, if we can keep it.”
Rebecca Syma
07.03.2012
ditto!!! read your history and step back from the homogenized and pasturized for your own good milk!!!
oldgulph
07.03.2012
@oldgulph
Now, Wyoming, New Mexico and most of rural population states are totally ignored in presidential elections.
**
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. More than 2/3rds of states and voters are ignored.
**
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) will matter, as usual.
**
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
**
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
**
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.
**
Of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes) 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states – NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) – got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.
oldgulph
07.03.2012
@oldgulph
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
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 and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
**
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
**
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote 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. 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 vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
**
With National Popular Vote, when every vote 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.
**
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
**
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
**
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
**
Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as soccer mom voters in Ohio.
oldgulph
07.03.2012
@oldgulph
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 constitutional 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 in the periods between elections.
Jack Bruce
07.03.2012
The progressives have been inching toward a democracy for 150 years. The history books now declare that the USA is a democracy and it is beginning to look more like it with each passing day. The media declare us a democracy. Politicians speeches are littered with the word, democracy, throughout their diatribes and drivel. I weep for my country and my children and grand children for the liberties lost to tyrants through a very gradual process. Democrats, Republicans, or whatever party they claim only expand the scope of government and the citizens, and now illegal aliens, go along like sheep to the slaughter.
oldgulph
07.03.2012
@oldgulph
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national
popular vote, 338–70. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford,
and then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.
**
A lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: “I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.
National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it.”
**
Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.
**
National Popular Vote’s National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), and David Durenberger (R–MN) and former congressman John Buchanan (R–AL).
**
Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.
**
Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:”A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”
**
Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote ” http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ include:
**
Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.
**
Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.
**
Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.
Dan Byers
07.03.2012
Their are those amongst us that do not understand the value, significance, and importance of the US Constitution….how can we expect those same people to understand the importance of something like the Electoral College?
oldgulph
07.03.2012
@oldgulph
Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 9 of the original 13 states are ignored, among the more than 2/3rds of states and voters ignored.
**
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree, that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
**
More than 2/3rds 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.
**
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows.
As of March 10th, some pundits think there will be only Six States That Will Likely Decide The 2012 Election
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-six-states-that-will-likely-decide-the-2012-election/
**
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
**
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws, and Maine and Nebraska’s congressional district method, to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
**
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states 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.”
**
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
**
Robin Swanson
07.03.2012
The top 9 states make up 50% of the population. CA has more people than the bottom 21 states. So there would be a lot of campaigning in CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI and GA.
oldgulph
07.03.2012
@oldgulph
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes!
**
Political Reality. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that 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.
**
Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
**
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
**
To put these numbers in perspective, 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).
Rick Sweet
07.03.2012
I would like to go to a popular vote system. One person/ one vote. The current system is not fair and does not truly reflect what the majority want….
tim
07.03.2012
change it to the popular vote. I do not care about your electoral college!
Keith Pyron
07.03.2012
The Electoral College protects us from Mob Rule.
justin hapka
07.03.2012
Oh like the last election with the black panthers? good logic!!!,,,how would you know anyway whe it has never been used?!?
oldgulph
07.03.2012
@oldgulph
Under the current system, there is disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.
**
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.”
There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
**
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party’s dedicated activists.
Dan D UglyBunny
07.03.2012
@ Jack – remember that the use of words by our elected officials and media rarely represent the truth. They say “democracy” because the majority of people don’t get the difference between a simple democracy and a democratic republic. It’s not that our government is becoming a pure democracy, it’s just a word used for public relations. I have to disagree with the blame placed on progressives (although they might like the idea of) inching our way toward a democracy – nobody is moving our government towards a democracy – not in reality. That pointing the finger at a group and saying “They are to blame!” is the work of those that want us divided and bickering among ourselves so that we cannot address the real issues. Be cautious of playing into the blame-game and believing what our media feeds us.
The problem (I think we all agree on this) is the overreaching scope of the federal government, and that is the fault of the plutocracy that our media/banks/elected officials have created to maintain their power and keep the people out of policy making. The electoral college plays a role in this, it means that decisions can be made in back rooms that don’t necessarily represent the people’s best interests or wants. No, I don’t think a straight-up popular vote is the answer. Laws that restrict the representatives to vote only in the way their constituents vote could be some good reform.
But lets face it, the President is a puppet of the corporate donators and bankers that pay for his (her?) election. The corporate run media [We have all learned that the media is not "liberal" but actually owned, run and leans right? If you're still in denial of this, then you need a lesson in modern business.] plays a major role in keeping people misinformed and arguing about non-issues and the President, while our Congress and the Senate seats are owned by rich people with rich friends, and that is who they’re working for. Voting reform falls way behind the importance of Congressional reform, ending corporate personhood and getting money out of politics. You want less federal government? Most people do, but those people need to be heard and as long as money speaks, money will speak louder than people.
justin hapka
07.03.2012
dan, “The corporate run media [We have all learned that the media is not “liberal” but actually owned, run and leans right? If you’re still in denial of this, then you need a lesson in modern business.”….really or could it be that the media is in fact in business to entertain and drama is the best form. Bush in office, liberal majority media, Obama, conservative majority…..common sence not modern business….. the only one in denial hear is you, your original question was ignored and you enjoy using a well put vocabulary to sound smart. But I see through your Bull, people like you are a dime a doxen where I am from. You sir, and I am not afraid to say it, are a marxist type idealist, welcome to the 21st century the 90tys are over it is time to think in terms of realism. Popular vote is fair, that is the closet form of Democracy we can currently have and to be denied it while telling the world to embrace it is hypocritical.
GFunk
07.04.2012
Thanks, you had one of the only informed comments on this thread!
GFunk
07.04.2012
I meant that for Dan D.Uglybunny… not Justin H.!
Marilyn Costanza Dominy
07.03.2012
Dan D,, what you write makes sense but why isn’t a straight up popular vote a good way to go?
Marilyn Costanza Dominy
07.03.2012
Keith, how does it protect from Mob Rule, esp. in this day & age.
Marilyn Costanza Dominy
07.03.2012
Maybe the people have to campaign via air & print equally in each state.
Tom Sims
07.03.2012
It matters not who votes………what matters is who counts them…….and that will not change.
justin hapka
07.03.2012
You make a good point…But atleast with a popular count we can easily do a 300,000 (i am aware not that many vote, but technology and a simple signature and thumb print caan make things runs smooth).million person recount….as long as people are not afraid to state who they voted for…(shrug)
Wayne A. Moore
07.03.2012
Yeah and 62% of Americans would like a free lunch. When people who haven’t a clue about politics get to vote directly for the president they will be voting for that free lunch, not for the best candididate with the best credentials to be President. We have a representative form of Government which has been working well since the 1780′s and the public is just as clueless as they were then about what makes good governance. Why should we change? So that more people can be on the dole??
Rob Lamb
07.03.2012
A 100% popular vote would rely intensely on an educated and well-informed public. Since we have neither in this nation and never have (hence the formation of the Electoral College in the first place) the Electoral College plays an important role ensuring the Executive branch is not perverted by popular vote, when needed.
Individuals have a direct vote in regards to the Legislative branch of government. Hyper-focusing on the Executive branch is a little too fashionable for my tastes.
oldgulph
07.03.2012
@oldgulph
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree, that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
**
More than 2/3rds 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.
**
Policies important to the citizens of “flyover” states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of battleground states when it comes to governing.
**
With National Popular Vote, every vote is equal, every voter will matter in every election, and the candidate with the most vote wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
**
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.”
There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
oldgulph
07.03.2012
@oldgulph
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.
Deanna Sy
07.04.2012
I still think the Electoral College is a scam.
GFunk
07.04.2012
The U.S.A. is NOT a democracy, but a republic with a republican form of government.
Their are a lot of scary and ignorant comments here. We are NOT a democracy … we are a representative republic. It’s so sad to see so many people here ignorant of what our system is, let alone of how it works! But I do admit the schools never taught us how our system works and use the word democracy way too much without defining it! Pure democracy would have the popular vote like ancient greece, which had plenty of corruption. We have a representative republic to protect our republic from mob rule of the popular vote for a good reason! This is NOT outdated at all, it’s just people who are clueless to history and how and why our system works spew this nonsense. Their can be corruption in every form of democracy including a representative republic but to try and say that a popular vote would mean less corruption is not only ignorant it is dangerous, especially these days with so many sheeple and cable tv! All we have to do is find out how are system really works and work harder at a local level to elect representatives who truly represent us and our localities. Most people commenting act like the most important vote is the presidential vote because they think we are supposed to have an “emporer and chief”. So please people get informed, get involved locally and please find out why a representative republic was set up by our forefathers!!!
Dan D UglyBunny
07.04.2012
@ Marilyn – I meant that since our system is so corrupt that just changing to a straight-up popular vote wouldn’t fix the problems. If we were discussing real reform, I would be very interested to hear both pros and cons on the EC and PV and how either would benefit our new system of elections and maintaining a people-run government.
Dan D UglyBunny
07.04.2012
And what Rob said is important – we can do more to fix what is broken by not thinking electing the President is so important when it’s really about who we put into our local and federal legislative positions. There is a reason that the POTUS gets so much attention, it’s about keeping us distracted.
Pat Kennedy
07.05.2012
It should be reformed but not abolished, otherwise the most populous states do all the deciding.