The Electoral College achieved what the Framers feared most

The monopoly you represent was what the Founders feared most and they were right to do so.

They didn't make any mistakes.

 

I meant no candidate could be LIKED and VOTED FOR by ALL voters. There are 130+ million voters living everywhere in the US, with a multitude of political views.

I also noted how they would campaign (poll, , campaign, organize, visit, etc) everywhere in proportion to population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

Candidates get more bang for their TV ad buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter 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.

Now, none of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Under a national popular vote, rural voters throughout the country would have their votes matter, rather than being ignored because of state boundaries.

 

The case you cite revolves around and relies upon
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)

..."may be more plausibly interpreted from the terms used, 'treaty, alliance, or confederation,' and upon the ground that the sense of each is best known by its association (noscitur a sociis) to apply to treaties of a political character, such as treaties of alliance for purposes of peace and war, and treaties of confederation, in which the parties are leagued for mutual government, political cooperation, and the exercise of political sovereignty, and treaties of cession of sovereignty, or conferring internal political jurisdiction, or external political dependence, or general commercial privileges,"
and that
"the latter clause, 'compacts and agreement,' might then very properly apply to such as regarded what might be deemed mere private rights of sovereignty, such as questions of boundary, interests in land situate in the territory of each other, and other internal regulations for the mutual comfort and convenience of states bordering on each other."
And he adds:
"In such cases, the consent of Congress may be properly required, in order to check any infringement of the rights of the national government, and at the same time, a total prohibition to enter any compact or agreement might be attended with permanent inconvenience or public mischief."

A compact or agreement that, by design, serves to eliminate the political power of the states who do not belong to same, falls under this, without reasoned question to the contrary.

Your statement is false, and now knowing this, you willfully propagate a falsehood.

 

I said that cooperation will probably be a foregone conclusion after 2021

 

You did not in any way address the issue put to you.
I do not wonder why.

 

You need to stop spewing senseless numbers and go look at the actual election results. 1 in 5 votes for Hillary came from NY and CA. That's a fact, no matter how much you try to spin it...

 

I said that I recognized it would be invalid given the non-cooperation of Congress. But Congress will be cooperative after 2021 when it will be Democratic

After the 2020 elections anything having to do with Republicans will be DONE. as will they.

 

Good luck with that.

 

No luck needed.

 

Clinton CA - 8,753,792
Clinton NY - 4,556,142
13,309,934

Clinton US - 65,853,652

All US - 136,669,237

 

This compact does NOT serve to eliminate the political power of the states who do not belong to same.

Because each state has independent power to award its electoral votes in the manner it sees fit, it is difficult to see what "adverse effect" might be claimed by one state from the decision of another state to award its electoral votes in a particular way. It is especially unclear what adverse "political" effect might be claimed, given that the National Popular Vote compact would treat votes cast in all 50 states and the District of Columbia equally. A vote cast in a compacting state is, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact does not confer any advantage on states belonging to the compact as compared to non-compacting states. A vote cast in a compacting state would be, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact certainly would not reduce the voice of voters in non-compacting states relative to the voice of voters in member states.

 

Do the MATH... One in five votes for Hillary are from NY and CA...

You are ignoring third party votes completely, which cut into that total which is irrelevant to the conversation at hand in any case...

 

All US - 136,669,237 includes third party votes

In a US presidential election, one cannot conveniently have any votes for any candidate(s) in any state(s) ignored.

Again. NY and CA Democrats, Alone, could not determine the presidency

5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.
1,366,760 New Yorkers live in rural areas.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.

California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million).
In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

Alone, they could not determine the presidency
In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.

The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

In 2004, 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.

New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

Under a popular-vote system CA and NY would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.

 

My point exactly when I pointed out that, "California has a population of 40 million and has 55 electoral votes. Montana has a population of 1.06 million and has three electoral votes. When one does the math it means the non-college educated farmer in Montana has 2.17 votes in the Electoral College for every vote a teacher, lawyer, scientist, and doctor has in California.

"In varying degrees, the same is true in the rural areas of Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, and North and South Carolina."

Guess which states Trump won in 2016. The states where the rural voter has roughly twice the representation of the urban or suburban voter.

 

I hate to break this to you, but the people who live in NY and CA are Americans, too. It is not the states that matter. People matter. Americans matter.

Why should a resident in one state have twice the representation of the resident of another state? That is exactly the consequence of the Electoral College. An American living in Montana has twice the representation of an American living in California.

 

Of course they dominate look at who won the popular vote in 2000 and 2016..

 

More propaganda, each state automatically 3 .


Two for the state

One for the people.

California has like 5 million illegals that's counted in the census so , California gets an extra 5 ..

 

Sign In

• Polls
• Election 2020
• Video
• Writers
• More

Polls

Quick Poll/Map Links
Find Any Poll
×
General Election: Trump vs. Biden
Trump vs. Biden | Trump vs. Warren | Trump vs. Sanders | Trump vs. Harris | Trump vs. Buttigieg

Emerson 12/15 - 12/17 1222 RV 2.7 52 48 Biden +4
USA Today/Suffolk 12/10 - 12/14 1000 RV 3.0 41 44 Trump +3
IBD/TIPP 12/5 - 12/14 849 RV 3.5 50 45 Biden +5
FOX News 12/8 - 12/11 1000 RV 3.0 48 41 Biden +7
Quinnipiac 12/4 - 12/9 1553 RV 2.5 51 42 Biden +9
All General Election: Trump vs. Biden Polling Data

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

 

"In addition, it appears that Trump has attracted the support of anarchists, bigots, and angry citizens."

 

60 million of them , wow better call in the national gaurd because they just might start a political war..lol

 

Not sure what that has to do with the post you quoted.

 

Perhaps you can work to change the way your state appoints its electors. My suggestion is to pick random citizens.

 

All it takes is 38 of the several sovereign states to ratify such a change to the treaty. Which ones do you think will ratify a change that will reduce their political power?

 

The states kind of matter because the states established the treaty between themselves.

 

Interesting you picked California and Montana as your states to compare. While you are correct on the number of electoral votes your comparison of education levels does not mean much. A quick Google search will show that for high school graduation rate Montana is ranked first in the nation and California last. As for college education California is not that far ahead of Montana. Californians with a bachelors or higher is 32.6%, Montana follows closely with 30.7%. For advanced degrees Montana is at 10.2% and California at 12.2. I'm thinkin' them there numbers ain't too bad for those dumb Montana farmers.

I find it hard to take your argument seriously when you seem to indicate you think people with more education are somehow more qualified to vote. If we want to look at things that way maybe we should use IQ as the deciding factor and not education level. I have known some really... well... let's say... not so smart college grads.