According to this Detroit Free Press article, Republican state legislators in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio are talking about changing the electoral college in their states. They are thinking about ending the winner-take-all system. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
This movement is going to backfire on the GOP. Voters see a scheme here and don’t like being used as fodder in any kind of a voter scheme.
When Republicans learn to accept what it takes to win over the vote of the common working man, they will have a chance of winning for a few presidential elections in the future.
For starters in that strategy is, the GOP must come out in favor of Living Wages, a stronger public financed Social Security System, Medicare, and Single Payer HealthCare.
This is what voters want – and the Republicans need to understand it or else be prepared to go the way of their ancestors the Whigs.
Like I have said before, RESTORE the Electoral College and go with Maine and Nebraska-style district election of presidential electors and then have the individual presidential elector candidates campaign with THEIR names on the ballots INSTEAD OF those of the presidential nominees. RESULT: 538 individual presidential elector races with probably around 3000 different candidates = local campaigns and big money out of politics. The Electoral College would be restored to its intended deliberative body.
Don’t really see how this would take “… big money out of politics.” As recently as 1968, Alabama listed only the names of the presidential electors – not the actual candidates – on the ballots and it did nothing to change the results.
Even in 1964 with Barry Goldwater carrying Alabama along with 5 GOP congressional candidates to victory, the names of the presidential electors on the ballot meant very little. Voters knew who they were voting for – Barry Goldwater.
In states which the races are competitive, just as much money will be spent with or without the presidential elector names as well as the candidate names. Voters know if they vote for the Democratic electors, such vote will go to the Democratic candidate, and likewise for the GOP.
Public Financing of all federal elections – and prohibiting the candidates from raising and spending any on their respective campaigns – will take big money out of politics. Not sure how to have public financing on the state level, as most states do not have the funds to support multiple candidacies. Perhaps just setting a spending cap to include “independent group expenditures” for a candidate would be a start.
There is a way, the voters can know who is running, and for what office, and what the candidate stands for, without spending billions of dollars. We’ve just got to set down and come up with some common sense approaches to this ever-growing problem.
A survey of Pennsylvania voters showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.
& &
A survey of Michigan voters showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 73% among independents, 78% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 67% among 30-45 year olds, 74% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 86% among women and 59% among men.
& &
A survey of Ohio voters showed 70% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 81% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 65% among Republicans, and 61% among Others.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 60% among 30-45 year olds, 67% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 84% among women and 54% among men.
& &
A survey of Wisconsin voters showed 71% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 81% among Democrats, 67% among independents, and 63% among Republicans.
By age, support was 68% among 18-29 year olds, 62% among 30-45 year olds, 72% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 80% among women and 61% among men.
NationalPopularVote.com
The minority rule gerrymander robot party HACKS are trying to rig the system to get PERMANENT Control.
Lots of super power mad HACKS in the many ONE party safe seat gerrymander districts — in all State legislatures and the gerrymander Congress.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
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).
Instead of any of the current obviously partisan Republican changes proposed for dividing electoral votes only in states that have recently voted Democratic in presidential elections, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.
It would make every vote, everywhere, politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, 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.
Obvious partisan machinations, like those proposed now in Michigan’s lame duck session, should add support for the National Popular Vote movement. If the party in control in each state is tempted every 2, 4, or 10 years (post-census) to consider rewriting election laws with an eye to the likely politically beneficial effects for their party in the next presidential election, then the National Popular Vote system, in which all voters across the country are guaranteed to be politically relevant and treated equally, is needed now more than ever.
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 70-80% range or higher. – in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
There’s a petition against the attempt now in Michigan (and elsewhere) to rig the Electoral College
To Make Sure Every Vote Counts
http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=GOPElectionRigging&autologin=true
Not sure I am convinced the Electoral College needs to be done away with, even though such comes across as a “populist” idea, of which I proudly claim to be in that fold.
While it is true that even with a popular vote being the sole test of who is elected president, the votes of small states are added to that popular vote, and can make the difference in a close election. Still, I don’t want to see a “philosophy of government” which might be held primarily by those residing in the larger populated states, to cancel out the minority views of a “philosophy of government” which might exist only in the states with a small population.
This is one of those issues which I am going to have to ponder on a little longer before I can take sides.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not “do away with” the Electoral College.
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), 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.
The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter 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 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 and the majority of Electoral College votes.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation’s votes!
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included 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.
In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826
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).
Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current Electoral College system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.
With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn’t be about winning a handful of battleground states.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits.
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later 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%.
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.