Why are you satisfied with “most votes” and not a majority?

Does the National Popular Vote proposal guarantee that the voters in each State will even be voting from among the same candidates?

Does the National Popular Vote proposal have any provisions that would guarantee that voter qualifications and procedures would be same in all States?

What if Texas grants each voter 34 “popular votes”, one for each of its presidential electors? What if Texas extends the franchise in presidential elections to 16 year old voters, or even younger?

What if Texas requires a popular vote majority for the selection of its presidential electors? Do members of the compact use the “popular vote” from the general election or the runoff?

What if Texas has a popular election in September or March or even January to choose delegates to a convention that would appoint the 34 presidential electors for Texas on the November date designated by Congress?

Does the National Popular Vote proposal have any mechanism for resolving truly close elections, such as that of 1880?

National Popular Vote absolutely guarantees that the big city machines will control elections in this country. Currently there are parts of America that get short shrift, but those parts will grow as candidates are forced to kowtow to the big numbers; Chicago, New York, La, etc. You are assuring the Democrat Party dominion.

Also, the Electoral College was a large part of Federalism, duly designed to avoid forcing the states into an electoral scheme controlled by the central government. States did not need to even hold elections if they didn`t want; the state legislature or even the governor could decide, and the College of Electors was the instruement where the state made it`s decision known. The idea of NPV abrogates that Federalism, forcing states into a straightjacketed electoral scheme.

It was one of the checks and balances; the central government could not force states to obey a standardized electoral scheme. The Founding Fathers understood that danger.

Our system works well, and has served us faithfully for over 220 years. NPV guarantees to bring the courts into elections on a regular basis, and will make vote fraud far more attractive than it already is.

If you think the EC is too much a rubber stamp, you should indeed think about reforming-and strengthening-it. Removing this system will only strengthen demogoguerie, vote fraud, and abuse.

A recent history book (unfortunately I forget the name) discussed in detail all the political events of January 1933. Everyone on New Year’s Day in Germany and around the world thought that Hitler’s chances of taking power had just about disappeared, as of January 1, 1933. Yet by the end of January he was in power. The book describes the events of January 1933. Von Papen and Schleicher, the other two recent premiers, hated each other so much, they were each willing to support Hitler in order to stymie the other one. Also President Hindenburg’s son got behind Hitler, and the son influenced the father.

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Majority rule = Democracy

Minority rule = Monarchy — Oligarchy = nonstop Kings, Queens, dictators, tyrants in world history with their gangs of flunkee supporters — since NO monarch can do his/her evil stuff by him/her self.

Nonstop indirect minority rule gerrymanders in U.S.A. history — starting in VA in 1618 (after the VA colony adult males could no longer assemble in person — VA legislative body created).

Same story in all early colonies.

Colony gerrymanders became State gerrymanders on 4 July 1776.

3 U.S.A. gerrymander systems (House, Senate, Electoral College) stuck over the State gerrymanders in the 1787 U.S.A. Constitution.

Result — the EVIL *modern* gerrymander govts in the U.S.A. and all 50 States — i.e. ALL de facto monarchies – oligarchies — by a few elite MONSTERS — Prezs, Guvs, Speakers, Senate majority leaders — giving orders to the party hacks in the gerrymander Congress and all 50 State gerrymander legislatures..

The rest of the People are totally ignored on a day to day basis.

REAL Democracy NOW via 100 percent Proportional Representation — regardless of Stone Age political MORONS — who love having minority rule regimes.

democracy is already limited by a system of checks and balances known as the Leglislative, Judicial, and Executive branches.

Abstracting the part of the whole system that SHOULD be democratic… elections… is totally ridiculous in the modern world. We do not have to coax reluctant little farming states into the union any more, and weighting their votes more heavily than others is likewise ridiculous.

Making elections a joke, in other words, is a bit TOO limiting on liberty.

Your amount of cognitive dissonance here is amazing. What exactly is so great about liberty, if you have to force people to act against their will (or NOT act in accordance with their will, in this case) to preserve it? Can you not see the ridiculousness of that stance?

That sounds like the flailing of someone who doesn’t want to face the truth about their political philosophy; it just plain doesn’t work. You sound like a communist that advocates for authoritarian rule to make the utopia come true. If it cannot come true democratically (with some checks and balances), then it’s a pipe dream, only to be used by those who thirst for power to control you.

#14:

it’s easy to say that winner takes all maximizes a state’s impact, but it’s wrong. If you are a winner take all state that is not competitive, you have no impact at all. Think about how much california, new york, massachusetts, Utah, and in fact nebraska and Maine matter in terms of actual electoral politics (not primaries). The answer is: practically none at all. No democrat has to promise anything to california to swing voters there.

However, witness in this last election: even though Obama was unlikely to win nebraska, and mccain was unlikely to win maine, they were both willing and able to target a lot (relatively speaking) of attention in select areas in each state to try to pry loose some of the “flexible” votes. Obama even succeeded in nebraska this year.

Neither state would have gotten two seconds of attention last cycle if they did not have split apportionment.

the problem is that competitive states lose influence (florida would NEVER do this), and non-competitive states FEAR that the same holds true for their already weak amount of influence. If they would wise up and see it’s the only way to get their influence back though… might even push enough states over the edge to sign on to a constitutional amendment to force the truly competitive states into it as well.

By having a winner-take-all system, a state maximizes its impact on the presidential election process.

1. Minor parties and independents can get electoral votes in large states.

2. All states are in play — big candidates need to worry about flipping one or two votes in most states.

3. No more winning all electoral votes when you only got 45% of the vote in the state.

4. Much better representation of what the state’s voters want.

Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark: Rampant Socialism

Spain: Fascist dictators and Socialism

Switzerland: last to let women vote has a tradition of limited democracy … but it’s getting worse now …