Accuracy in Media

Mainstream media has taken up a Democratic cause and is now pushing to undo the Electoral College.

The Democratic candidate won the popular vote for president in 2000 and 2016 but did not capture the White House, because, they say, the Electoral College gives an advantage to areas of the country that tend to vote for their opponents. But rather than modify their message, they want total political primacy of the huge population centers on the coasts.

In the last few days, the calls have intensified. “The Time Has Come: Reform the Electoral College Now,” beamed a Daily Beast headline . “It’s time to abolish the Electoral College,” said Hillary, who won the popular vote by more than 3 million votes but lost the Electoral College vote.

It must go, the Daily Herald in suburban Chicago said, because as long as Illinois is so reliably in the Democrat camp, candidates will ignore it.

Democrats and their media allies have long made those arguments with minimal impact, so they’ve taken a different tack – that the Electoral College threatens national security.

The argument put forth in Politico by Matthew Olsen, who was director of the National Counterterrorism Center under President Obama, and Benjamin Haas, a law school student, is that Alexander Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers the Electoral College could “shield the United States ‘from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.’”

But thanks to the Internet, the Electoral College “enables foreign powers to more easily pierce the very shield Hamilton imagined it would be.”

The authors briefly discuss attacks on voting systems – but nobody seriously posits these gave Trump the victory, and electoral integrity is not their concern. Persuasion is their concern. As in, it’s a threat to national security that voters could be persuaded to vote for Trump.

“In Hamilton’s day … it would have been nearly impossible for a hostile power to co-opt dozens of briefly chosen electors flung across 13 states with primitive roads,” they write. “But in the social media age, the Electoral College system provides ripe microtargeting grounds for foreign actors who intend to sabotage presidential elections via information and disinformation campaigns, as well as by hacking our voting infrastructure.”

The authors then launch into a lengthy discussion of how Mark Warner, a Democratic senator from Virginia, has aided “upwards of 1,000 paid Internet trolls working out of a facility in Russia, in effect, taking over series of computers, which is then called a botnet.” Warner further suggested these botnets targeted voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania – the surprise victories, by a combined total of fewer than 80,000 votes, that put him in the White House.

They then quote a former FBI agent saying in March, “Today, you can create content, gain the audience, build the bots, pick out the election and even the voters that are valued the most in swing states and actually insert the right content in a deliberate period.” They can even disguise the bots as humans with local flavor.

It’s the oldest trope among losers in politics – the opponent won because his supports were duped by secret messaging whose motivation they weren’t capable of understanding.

But it does not take into account the reality of campaign fundamentals that Clinton ignored or failed to execute. It doesn’t account for the time Clinton spent in private meetings with high-dollar donors in the last weekends before the election, while the Trump campaign visited electoral hot spots Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

It doesn’t account for the fact Clinton never visited Wisconsin and refused to move resources to Michigan and Florida despite party officials’ warnings. Or that she got caught in a series of lies about her secret server or that she failed to come up with a memorable message.

Olsen and Haas suggest “making public the false narratives that adversaries push through fake news stories and encouraging social media companies to identify and block fake accounts and bogus ad campaigns designed to tilt our elections.”





Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • Lee Sargeant

    make way for more, or I should say all, states that have more voters than registered voters – just like California then! This is what they really want – just as ‘democrapic’ as Venezuela, or remember the Iraqis and their fingers that showed they voted – for the biggest thug on the block… or else you die. that is what democrapcy is really about.

  • samiam

    It is a good thing I know for a fact the msm and liberals lie so that was my take on it! What makes them think they have anything to say about it! Most people know they are not trustworthy enough to “go there”! No one has a right to decide that is WE THE PEOPLE!

  • samiam

    There have been more voter frauds brought forward! The Electoral College is not theirs to change!

  • Austinniceguy

    It won’t happen anytime soon. If they continue their stupidity it will only serve to enforce what we already proved to do, win elections. The libturds thought that they could cheat and collude enough to get that useless hole, Sh!tlery elected and even all of that wasn’t enough. There are cities and municipalities that are already allowing illegals to vote in local elections. That is EXACTLY how cancer starts. If we don’t put a stop to that lunacy we will allow them to take over this country. The great news is that the useless hole will NEVER be president and her party of deranged losers is in total disarray. We need to keep it that way.

  • taptoudt

    The Constitution would have to be changed for this to happen – not likely.

  • Tom W

    They’re just whining because their candidate lost. The fact that a candidate can win the popular vote but not the election isn’t a flaw in the Constitution, it’s a feature that’s working as designed.

  • mioahu

    Whenever the mainscream fake media is pushing a narrative, i know for sure the exact opppsite is true. I wish they start making market predictions, so i can bet against that…leftists are pathetic and everything they do hurts America

  • Peter

    Stuffing around with elections and electoral systems is the shortest course to dictatorship. It is the first step to eliminating a democracy.
    America is floundering in the shallows. Not much hope for America.
    It is said ‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. Altering the electoral system is not fixing what is wrong with America. But I do see there is something wrong with America that urgently needs fixing.
    It is also said ‘Democracy is not perfect, but it’s the best form of government money can buy’. I do think that needs fixing. But it will not be the fix America truly needs.
    America needs to get out of the shadow of the Vatican ‘sceptre of rulers’ where it dwells as a ‘shade’ Isaiah 14:5 / 14:9 RSV / Revelation 17:18 KJV ultimately under Satan Isaiah 14:12, and back under the shadow of God whom it has rejected. Hosea 14:7 RSV.
    The alternative is the NWO brutal regime of Isaiah 14:6 which will destroy the earth’s surface, lay waste every city and make the earth desolate and tremble Isaiah 14:16-17, with peace and safety deployed as its carrot to con the people that the Vatican NWO is the way to go.
    America is its whipping boy and attack dog to that end, sacrificing American youth, sacrificing America’s sons with not a tear, to Molech.

  • Terry R. Campbell

    Go ahead change it, it wont matter. Trump and Clinton ran in electrol college, Trump won! Had the election been about the popular vote, Trump would still win! He would just have had to campaign differently. We all know Hillary would just do the same thing she did any way, which was nothing!

  • Sgt. Pepper

    Throw out the usual democrat voter fraud and Clinton did not win the pop vote.

  • Mitch A

    The electoral college did exactly what it was designed to accomplish. Prevented the “coastal elite” from establishing a governmental hell controlled entirely by the left.

  • If you can’t win by the rules, eliminate the rules. The writers of the constitution had this sort of chicanery in mind when they established the Electoral College.

  • toto

    Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
    “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

    In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
    “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

    Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Michael Dukakis (D-MA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

    Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL).

    Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

  • toto

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
    Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

    Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
    No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
    No more handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

  • toto

    The founders created the Electoral College, but the states made it winner-take-all.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “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.”

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

  • toto

    Your documented verifiable proof of more than 3 million fraudulent votes, all for Clinton?

  • toto

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    In 2017, the bill has passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
    The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

  • toto

    The founders created the Electoral College, but the states made it winner-take-all.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “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.”

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

  • toto

    There was no “left” when the Constitution was written.

  • toto

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “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.

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
    ? appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
    ? appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
    ? popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
    ? popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
    ? popular election using congressional districts,
    ? popular election using multi-member regional districts,
    ? combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
    ? appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
    ? statewide popular election.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use winner-take-all laws

  • toto

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
    Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

    Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

    Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
    “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

    In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
    “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

    Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969)

  • IraMad

    Oh yeah, let’s just have “the coast” elites choose our leaders. We’re too stupid to understand anyway.

  • toto

    The founders created the Electoral College, but the states made it winner-take-all.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “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 National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes among all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

    The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 has passed in the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
    It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

  • IraMad

    Don’t get hopes up, Losers.

  • Sgt. Pepper

    Way more than that. 3 million illegals at least in CA. Gerry Brown told them to vote. Democrats cheat in every election. Why do you think they rail against voter ID?

  • toto

    Now waiting for your documented verifiable proof of way more than 3 million fraudulent votes, all for Clinton.

  • Steve Anderson

    Wrong.

  • toto

    What facts are wrong?

  • Mitch A

    Was not called the left but you are wrong, there has always been a left.

  • jal64

    Much ado about nothing. The Electoral College is enshrined in the Constitution. It is not going anywhere absent another amendment. Ain’t gonna happen!

  • ARETHEYNUTS

    The presidential election is NOT a national election. It is 50 separate state elections, with each state voting for the candidate they want to be President.

  • Jimmy Leggs

    Then we’d need to do away with two-senators-per-state rule, too, because the Electoral College is tied to the same concept of equal representation (regardless of a state’s population). Then Demon-crats couldn’t abuse the system, and we’d be free of assholes like Leahy, Sanders, Chaffee, Biden and many others throughout the past 100 years in particular.

    And why isn’t Clinton in jail!? I once heard learned Republicans from NYC’s Giuliani to FNC’s “Judge Jeanine” to ACLJ’s Jay Sekulow and Newt Gingrich list in detail how to prosecute her and now, nothing!

    Actually, with so many of the Enemies Within in Washington D.C., our military should make a first strike against them — something that should have been done at least 5 years ago with the Obama administration’s tyranny, treason and hatemongering. But our military is as lazy, afraid and insecure as Congress. What a joke they all are. Maybe an unparalleled and massive, divinely inspired hurricane will do the job for us.

  • Austinniceguy

    Blah, blah, blah. You wasted your worthless time with all your boring BS.

  • toto

    Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. This feature cannot be changed by state law or an interstate compact.

    In fact, equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides:
    “No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

    Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states.

    In contrast, the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigns the power of selecting the manner of appointing presidential electors to the states. The enactment by a state legislature of the National Popular Vote bill is an exercise of a legislature’s existing powers under the U.S. Constitution.

  • toto

    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 abolish 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), in the enacting 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 retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. 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, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

  • toto

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

  • toto

    What exactly is “wrong?”

  • Jinny Leggs

    You write all this whole Clinton is still running around free, which was at least a half of my point. So do you think then that they’re really going to care about all the minutiae that you just wrote. Get real, pal.

  • missieb2000

    The electoral college is fine- it ensures that California and New York don’t determine our leader ever four years.
    Felonia von Pantsuit ignored the rust belt, Florida, and every place she thought was her ‘due.’
    She wasted millions and the dnc has only themselves to blame.
    PS in 2000 the election came down to my home state of Florida. We have something called the Sunshine law so that we always have access to the people’s business.
    When all was said and done, President George W Bush won. It was a razor thin margin, but he did win the popular vote. The msm just chooses not to report it. Kinda like Russia, isn’t it?

  • thebearded1

    Here’s the great big lie taking over the story: The D’s LOST the popular and electoal vote due to massive election fraud caught during the weeks of early voting and the general election. Here in TX it took only 4 days of electronic voting devices forcing Hillary votes no matter who was selected before Governor Abbott put a stop to it statewide – only paper ballots. Plus some states polling places actually verified who was voting – which is the law despite what leftist losers tried to do to stuff ballots, raise the dead multiple times, and be someone else even more than that. When liberal NPR says 25 million fraudulent votes got in the system – and they’ve NEVER retracted that statement – you begin to understand it was A TRUMP LANDSLIDE. But of course, it’s Trump – so no credit given, and smears thicker than a mud pack.

  • toto

    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 split among candidates.

  • toto

    Of COURSE, Clinton did NOT ignore Florida.

    Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

  • John Cunningham

    The only thing we should do away with is the Mainstream Media and, Federal Justices who legislate rather than a strict Constitutional opinion. I guess while we are at it, we need to outlaw Liberals too.

  • NERDWORLD PROBLEMS

    They can run their mouths all they want, truth is they have no chance in hell of doing away with the electoral college, its in the constitution and requires that the people they are trying to screw sign off on getting rid of it so they can screw us. Just what are the chances of that happening?

  • Will – Kay Lake

    We can’t let the big cities, on each coast decide for the whole of this country!!! That is what makes our Constitution great, the Electoral College, the necessity that it is for all of us!! We can not let the Democrats do this!!! Isn’t it amazing how well thought out our wonderful Constitution is for ALL of us!!!

  • MILES E DRAKE

    If and when the bribe-taking baby-killing bulldyke and her Obammunist media shills are able to end the electoral college, elections will be African- or Latin-American style farces followed by violence and bloodshed. The party of Marx, Mohammed and Murder will not be able to alter the Constitution to effect this, so they are almost certainly going to launch an open revolution, most likely in November, which is the first anniversary of America’s deliverance from dictatorship and also the centennial of their avatar Lenin’s triumph in Russia. We will likely have to fight a civil war with these people, and every American who wants to live in the North American republic rather than the Central African Republic had better be ready to fight and win one.

  • Larry Crawfgord

    Instead, let’s require picture ID to vote and do away with the millions of illegal aliens and dead people who “voted” Democratic.

  • Matthew V. Brown

    It seems that few people understand that the Electoral College protects less populous states from the tyranny of major population centers on the East and West Coasts and the political chicanery of Chicago, which dominates Illinois. For those of us in the Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South and North Dakota, this can be very important in the way our voices will be heard. I’m concerned now about Texas.

  • Oldchopper

    They still believe they won the popular vote? Do away with voter fraud and the numbers would shift to the right. They would lose regardless!

  • toto

    Do you have any verifiable documented proof that there were almost 3 million fraudulent votes, all for Clinton?

  • toto

    Obammunist media shills?

    Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

    Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
    “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

    In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
    “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

    Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969),

  • toto

    Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

    16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

    16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
    The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

  • toto

    The founders created the Electoral College, but the states made it winner-take-all.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “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.”

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

  • toto

    Democrats?

    Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

    Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
    “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

    In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
    “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

    Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969),

    In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
    It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).

  • toto

    Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

    Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
    “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,”
    “The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

    Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

    In the 2016 general election campaign

    Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

    Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country’s population).

  • toto

    There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College – more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
    To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

    Instead, pragmatically, The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

    “They” include:
    Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

    Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
    “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

    In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
    “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

    Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969)

    In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
    It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).

  • toto

    Your verifiable documented proof that “The D’s LOST the popular and electoal vote due to massive election fraud caught during the weeks of early voting and the general election?”

  • toto

    “liberal NPR” did NOT say 25 million fraudulent votes got in the system

  • toto

    “why isn’t Clinton in jail!?”
    Because she has not been found guilty of any crime.

  • toto

    I do not see you have presented any documented verifiable proof that 3 million “illegals at least in CA” voted for Clinton.

  • bhagawan

    It will NEVER happen! In the EV system, each state has a say in the selection of the POTUS as otherwise it will be the will of a few large populous states shoved down the throats of the smaller states. and unfortunately most of the populous states are LIBERAL and so we will never have a GOP POTUS ever.

  • Sgt. Pepper

    I noticed you’re a moron.

  • toto

    documented verifiable proof that 3 million “illegals at least in CA” voted for Clinton?

  • toto

    Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

    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 less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

    But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included 7 states have voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 states have voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, 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.

    With National Popular Vote, it’s not the size of any given state, it’s the size of their “margin” that will matter.

    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) 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) 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).

  • toto

    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.

    Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored like the big ones because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

    Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

    Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. 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.

    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. 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.

    The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

    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.

    Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

    Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

  • toto

    From 1932-2008 the combined popular vote for Presidential candidates added up to Democrats: 745,407,082 and Republican: 745,297,123 — a virtual tie. Republicans have done very well in the national popular vote.

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

    Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

    The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

    In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
    Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
    In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

    In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

  • NERDWORLD PROBLEMS

    Since there is already significant evidence that all those liberal strongholds make thorough use of voter fraud to achieve the numbers they do in elections and the fact that not a single one of them is willing to uphold the federal laws of the country, do you really think that they should be able to rule over everyone else and tell them what they should and shouldn’t be able to do? Don’t try to claim that voter fraud isn’t a thing because it has already been tallied that 144% of the available voting age population that could legally vote in California voted in the presidential election last yr. Apparently there are a large number of very civic minded zombies that live in California.

  • toto

    Liberal strongholds? – Arizona, Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Colorado, and New Mexico???

    Please share your “significant evidence.”

    Of COURSE it has NOT been tallied that 144% of the available voting age population that could legally vote in California voted in the presidential election last yr.

  • MILES E DRAKE

    The fact remains that the popular vote in 2016 included about 10 million illegal non-citizen votes. As soon as we elect the president by weighing the votes of ringers hired in Oaxaca and Tegucigalpa this country will become Panem of “The Hunger Games”, with Malibu and Manhattan the Capital and the rest of the country impoverished and oppressed districts.

  • toto

    Present your verifiable documented facts that the popular vote in 2016 included about 10 million illegal non-citizen votes.

  • toto

    California SOS Alex Padilla, Feb. 7, 2017
    ” . . . .there’s absolutely no proof, no evidence of massive voter fraud in California or anywhere across the country. I’m happy to share with you the statement put out by the National Association of Secretaries of State … my counterparts across the country on a bipartisan basis standing by the integrity of our elections. I mentioned to Team Trump then, and I’ve mentioned it again more recently if they have proof, if they have evidence we welcome it. We have procedures in place to investigate allegations of voter fraud, prosecute when the evidence is there, but as of now we have no evidence of noncitizens voting in November or voter impersonation at the polls. If somebody has information we’ll pursue it . . .”
    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-utbg-padilla-interview-voting-20170207-story.html

  • Oldchopper

    I was a volunteer for “Voter Integrity” for the 2012 election and saw first hand many violations at the poling places, it was ridicules. I spent many hours sending in the reports. Go back and read the news for yourself. Democrat operatives caught red handed with hundreds of ballots as well as voting machines in their vehicle. That’s only one case and the corruption continues. Why do the Democrats refuse voter ID? Why do they bus in voters to “same day registration” into other states? My case of voter fraud is more substantiated than your denial. As a true blue Progressive you believe that because you say it is true. The truth confuses those that refuse to listen. To answer your question about proof, I use history as evidence of the corruption. Why does California have 21 districts that show over 114% higher turn out at the polls than eligible voters in those districts? These are facts.

  • Peter

    Don’t you know? (The difference between wrong and right.)

  • Peter

    And married women still on the role under their maiden names.

  • Peter

    Where no ID requirement exists, the saying goes “Vote early and often”. Buses do the rounds.

  • Peter

    No, but can we have your word that they didn’t?

  • Peter

    Your word please that they didn’t?

  • Peter

    Documented verifiable proof please?

  • Peter

    Just your “word” please, that they didn’t?

  • toto

    If it were actually true that a presidential election in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most popular votes encourages voter fraud then we should surely have seen a voluminous number of prosecutions involving the tens of thousands of ballot boxes in the outcome-determining states in the periods immediately following every presidential election in the country.

    In November 2012, there were Republican Attorneys General in most of the battleground states that determined the outcome of the 2012 presidential election:
    ? Florida—29 electoral votes,
    ? Ohio—18 electoral votes,
    ? Virginia—13 electoral votes,
    ? Wisconsin—10 electoral votes,
    ? Colorado—9 electoral votes,
    ? Pennsylvania—20 electoral votes, and
    ? Michigan—16 electoral votes.

    These seven battleground states with Republican Attorneys General together possessed 115 electoral Votes. President Obama won each of these battleground states by low-single-digit margins. In 2012, President Obama received only 64 more than the 270 electoral votes required for election.

    There were not prosecutions involving the tens of thousands of ballot boxes in these seven outcome-determining states in the 2012 presidential election.

    Were these seven Republican Attorneys General derelict in fulfilling their legal duty to prosecute crime in their own states?
    Are these seven Republican Attorneys General also guilty of not promoting the interests of their own political party in attempting to prosecute cases of election fraud that would, at the minimum, embarrass (if not convict) members of the Democratic Party and embarrass the sitting Democratic President?

  • toto

    California SOS Alex Padilla, Feb. 7, 2017
    ” . . . .there’s absolutely no proof, no evidence of massive voter fraud in California or anywhere across the country. I’m happy to share with you the statement put out by the National Association of Secretaries of State … my counterparts across the country on a bipartisan basis standing by the integrity of our elections. I mentioned to Team Trump then, and I’ve mentioned it again more recently if they have proof, if they have evidence we welcome it. We have procedures in place to investigate allegations of voter fraud, prosecute when the evidence is there, but as of now we have no evidence of noncitizens voting in November or voter impersonation at the polls. If somebody has information we’ll pursue it . . .”
    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-utbg-padilla-interview-voting-20170207-story.html

    NASS, as an organization, has 21 Democratic, 33 Republican, and 1 Independent members.

  • toto

    NASS, as an organization, has 21 Democratic, 33 Republican, and 1 Independent members.

    California SOS Alex Padilla, Feb. 7, 2017
    ” . . . .there’s absolutely no proof, no evidence of massive voter fraud in California or anywhere across the country. I’m happy to share with you the statement put out by the National Association of Secretaries of State … my counterparts across the country on a bipartisan basis standing by the integrity of our elections. I mentioned to Team Trump then, and I’ve mentioned it again more recently if they have proof, if they have evidence we welcome it. We have procedures in place to investigate allegations of voter fraud, prosecute when the evidence is there, but as of now we have no evidence of noncitizens voting in November or voter impersonation at the polls. If somebody has information we’ll pursue it . . .”
    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-utbg-padilla-interview-voting-20170207-story.html

  • toto

    You accused me of not being factual, but did not say what you are disputing.

  • Peter

    Where did I accuse you of not being factual? Exact wording please? You asked Steve Anderson and I quote: ‘What exactly is “wrong”?’
    I am surprised that you don’t know. There is no dispute, just your question and my surprise that you don’t exactly know.

  • toto

    Sorry. I thought you were Steve, who has not replied.

  • Peter

    Undocumented illegal aliens do not require documentation, who become citizens, if they vote, by the sanctity of their vote, as called for and encouraged by the former President, as captured on Youtube, and attested to by witnesses everywhere. So of course massive voter fraud occurred all over the country and in California, documented or not. No ID required to vote dismisses that documentation. Why would you want documentary evidence that incriminates the subversion of the country – called treason. You can get away with anything undocumented, and if documented – shredded.

    Sometimes documentation is called for, as by Toto, when it is not wanted, safe in the knowledge that it does not exist. And sometimes existing documentation is called for. It all gets down to how best to chip away at America to finally bring it down internally. What best suits the purpose, documentation or no documentation. That is the only criterion. Undocumented citizens can vote with impunity and no documentation of the fact that can be used as evidence and proof of anything – especially treason and massive fraud electorally.

  • Peter

    Absolutely no proof? Obama was calling for it and ensuring the safety of illegal aliens who vote. No proof but plenty of fodder.

  • toto

    Until there is proof of millions of illegal aliens voting, one cannot claim with any authority or reality that there is.

  • Peter

    Thieves don’t document their theft. Traitors don’t document their treason. Electoral fraudsters don’t document their fraud. No documentation exists of electoral fraud as attested by you ‘Toto’.
    I smell a rat.

  • Peter

    OK. Thanks.

  • Oldchopper

    I won’t waste my time defending Republicans. I see what they are doing to our President today and it’s shameful. I see the third party as Progressives and they are made up of both parties bent on a one world government ruling class to which they feel entitled to be. Soros has already made claims to ruining countries and he considers it a game. A game that buys people and their politics. He has fully entrenched his corruption into our state governments by garnering favor of getting Democrats and Republicans into offices such as Secretary of State, the sole person responsible in determining the validity of voter fraud cases in each state. Neither party in politics today are bastions of honor and integrity. With that said I believe, as always, it’s in Gods hands.

  • Dorothy Schooley

    I agree with Matthew Brown above. Those of us in middle America would never have a chance to declare our wishes without the electoral college and the writers of the constitution saw that. They knew that areas of large populations could rule the ballot box and they were astute enough to make it fair.

  • Concerned

    You are absolutely correct. The genius of our Founders is very clear with the insertion of the Electoral College in the Constitution. This was done “specifically to protect the rights of the states.” It prevents a few high-population states from dominating the national presidential elections. Today, it is the large city metroplex regions that dominate due to the leftist, progressive socialists. If they win, they promote deficit spending and larger government for total control. California is a clear example, which is 100% under the control of the Democrats, pass stupid laws that increase their debt, increase unfunded liabilities, promote illegal’s and their benefits, keep increasing taxes, and are now one of the top five states that are fiscally unstable.
    Because these politicians promise free-bee’s to all of the poor, the illegals, and unemployed (something for nothing), but fail to understand that it must be paid for by somebody! As long as they get votes, these leftists have no problem taking the money from the working and give to the non-working.
    Obama promoted such large urban area’s, which he justified due to global warming. However, his real goal was to consolidate power to keep the Democrats in power for along time. As a result, San Diego, LA, San Francisco area control California. Chicago controls Illinois, New York City controls the State of New York, Seattle controls the state of Washington, Detroit and area around it control Michigan, Houston, Dallas area, Austin, and San Antonio control Texas. For people who want to eliminate the Electoral College, it requires a revision to the U.S. Constitution to change the Electoral College, which the small states will NOT allow.

  • Carolyn

    The electoral vote was established for a reason, which was to give ALL states a fair vote in the elections. If elections are based on popular votes then places like NYC, San Francisco, Los Angles, Seattle, etc. will have more clout on who gets elected than smaller populated states, such as Iowa, Arkansas, Alabama, NC, SC, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc. Furthermore, if the election was based on popular vote back when Bill Clinton was elected, he would have lost. He was the first candidate to win by only 46% of the popular vote in decades. Of course the main steam media and all you liberals choose not to remember that. But it was all over the news and made history! Back then all the liberals and the media thought it was a great deed that Clinton won even though he did not get the popular vote. Lastly, what the main stream media has failed to publish was that when the votes from some of the controversial cities were re-counted, it was discovered that Trump had actually won more votes than originally counted, and Trump had actually ended up winning the popular vote. So they miraculously stopped demanding that the votes be re-counted, and they NEVER published that fact to the public. So, beware people about supporting the popular vote in this country. If we lose the power of the electoral vote, then people in the small populated areas, such as farmers, ranchers, etc., might as well stay home, because your vote won’t matter…

  • Carolyn

    You are so right, thebearded1. Voter fraud has been going on for decades, and the 2016 election was no different. The only difference was that it was the guilty party (Democrats) who were doing the voter fraud, but accusing the Republicans of doing it. You know how it is; the guilty party is ALWAYS hasty to start yelling and accusing others of committing a wrong-doing to distract the attention away from themselves in hopes that they will get away with it. But they seldom do…

  • Steve Shotokai

    tonto, you can stick your head in the sand, or google voter fraud in California and you will find numerous articles by numerous sources. Alex Padilla is a Dem party activist. I would prefer to kiss a rattlesnake before believing him. http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/26/california-refuses-to-admit-its-voter-fraud-problem/

  • regulus30

    If one looks at the ideological condition of the left wing liberals as THEY attempt to establish an “OLIGARCHY”; you understand why there “MUST BE” an electoral college to insure our Constitution and nation is not turned into a fascist state.

  • regulus30

    another thing to remember here;; THERE IS MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD, just reported today that 280 precincts audited so far have MORE PEOPLE ON THEIR VOTER LOGS than live in each specific area.

  • Betty Jean Henry

    OK, why not let California and New York decide who will be president, and the rest of the country can just go to sleep? Get real! Hillary wants the presidency so bad, she would naturally be the first one to run in the next presidential election if the electoral college was eliminated. Actually, I think she will attempt it anyway, even if she is so old and feeble, they will have to strap her to a dolly and wheel her around to all the speaker’s dais to campaign. Don’t laugh! Money talks and she has lots of money to make another run happen. Pitiful…

  • toto

    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 split among candidates.

  • toto

    Please share verifiable documented proof that more people actually VOTED than live in each specific area.

  • toto

    The National Popular Vote bill would replace current 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), in the enacting 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 retains 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.

  • toto

    Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

    Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
    “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,”
    “The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

    Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

    In the 2016 general election campaign

    Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

    Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country’s population).

    Issues of importance to 38 non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

    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 [the then] 18 battleground states.”

    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.”

    Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

  • toto

    With the National Popular Vote bill guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

    A candidate cannot win an election with only the 16% of the population that lives in cities.

    To win, candidates must give attention to the 16% of the country that lives in rural areas.

    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.

    Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

    16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

    16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
    The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

  • toto

    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.

    Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored like the big ones because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

    Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

    Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. 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.

    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. 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.

    The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

    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.

    Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

    Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

  • toto

    Bill Clinton won the most national popular votes. He would have won.

    With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state’s or district’s electoral votes.

    Since 1828, one in six states have cast their Electoral College votes for a candidate who failed to win the support of 50 percent of voters in their state

    Few legislative bills have been introduced in state legislatures in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation’s 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any widespread public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

    In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.

    Since 1824 there have been 17 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.– including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 and 1996), and Trump.

  • toto

    In 2012, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), voters in just 60 counties and DC could have elected the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters.

    Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

    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 less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

  • toto

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

    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.

  • toto

    Please share this miraculous verified documented proof that “when the votes from some of the controversial cities were re-counted, it was discovered that Trump had actually won more votes than originally counted, and Trump had actually ended up winning the popular vote”

  • Bob

    Once again, it is obvious, the main stream media (MSM…yes, they have their own acronym now) are an advocacy force for the Democrat party

  • toto

    Q: Did NPR report that a study found “over 25 million Hillary Clinton votes were completely fraudulent,” and that she “actually lost the popular vote”?
    A: No. That claim was made in a story that conflates a 2012 article about inaccuracies in voter registration rolls with actual fraudulent votes.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/25-million-clinton-votes-werent-fake/

  • toto

    In 2012, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), voters in just 60 counties and DC could have elected the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters.

    Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

    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 less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

  • toto

    Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

    In 2000, 537 popular votes in Florida determined that the candidate who had 537,179 less national popular votes would win.

    Less than 80,000 votes in 3 states determined the 2016 election, where there was a lead of over 2,8oo,ooo popular votes nationwide.

    Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in 1, 2, or 3 states would have elected a 2nd-place candidate in 6 of the 18 presidential elections

  • toto

    Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

    16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

    16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
    The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

  • toto

    in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t poll, organize, buy ads, and visit 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 as 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.

  • toto

    Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws, in some states, big city Democratic votes can outnumber all other people not voting Democratic in the state. All of a state’s votes may go to Democrats.

    If you had popular vote, every conservative in a state that now predictably votes Democratic would count. Right now they count for 0

    The current system completely ignores conservatives presidential voters in states that vote predictably Democratic.

    With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Even if a candidate would be certain to lose a state under the current system, and no votes would matter under the statewide winner-take-all system, campaigning there under National Popular Vote would get them more votes that will matter and count equally. Even if a candidate would be certain to win a state under the current system, campaigning there under National Popular Vote would get them more votes that will matter and count equally. Every popular vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

    Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every voter is equal, the campaign (polling, organizing, ad spending and visits) must be run in every part of the country.

    When and where voters matter, then so do the issues they care about most.

  • toto

    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 abolish 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), in the enacting 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 retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. 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, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

  • toto

    the statement put out by the National Association of Secretaries of State … my counterparts across the country on a bipartisan basis standing by the integrity of our elections. I mentioned to Team Trump then, and I’ve mentioned it again more recently if they have proof, if they have evidence we welcome it. We have procedures in place to investigate allegations of voter fraud, prosecute when the evidence is there, but as of now we have no evidence of noncitizens voting in November or voter impersonation at the polls. If somebody has information we’ll pursue it . . .”

  • Mary C. Blood

    This seems to be part of Obama’s plan to “fundamentally change” the United States. Are “We the People” going to allow this?

  • Tannim

    Just goes to show how these media mutts at The Narrative hate freedom and republicanism and therefore America.

  • Tannim

    So in other words, Candidate A could win a state by an overwhelming margin in the popular vote but then have its Electoral Votes go to Candidate B since they won the national vote.

    Please explain how this makes any sense or represents that state properly.

  • Tannim

    You are delusional. See above.

  • Tannim

    Here’s a clue, toto: you are stuck in Oz.

    The Electoral College exists to make the President elected by regional state elections, not nationally. The whole popular vote argument flies against republucanism and therefore America.

    If you want to complain about winner-take-all in 48 states, fine, but your “solution” tosses the baby with the bathwater.

  • Tannim

    Stick to politics here, not mythology.

  • Tannim

    Do you have any verifiable documented proof that you’re not an idiot troll?

  • Tannim

    Because she wasn’t prosecuted.

    Yet.

    *I* could take her into criminal court and get those 2,113 federal felony convictions, and I’m not even a lawyer.

  • toto

    I have not heard Obama support.

  • toto

    Please knock yourself out.

  • toto

    “The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The National Popular Vote states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
    – Vikram David Amar – professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.

    In Gallup polls since 1944 until before this election, 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 has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state’s winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

    Question 1: “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”

    Question 2: “Do you think it more important that a state’s electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?”

    Support for a National Popular Vote
    South Dakota — 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
    Connecticut — 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
    Utah — 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2

  • toto

    Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island conducted popular elections for Governor. If popular election of a state’s chief executive meant that these four states were not a “republic,” then all four would have been in immediate violation of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”). If the states were not “republics,” the delegates from these four states would not have voted for the Constitution at the Convention and these four states would never have ratified the Constitution.

    Madison’s definition of a “republic” in Federalist No. 14: “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” Also Federalist No. 10.

    The United States would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), under a district system (such as used by Maine and Nebraska), or under the proposed national popular vote system (in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states and the District of Columbia).

    National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a “republican” form of government or is a “democracy.”

    In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
    A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at 50-state-level (as with the National Popular Vote bill).

    If a “republican” form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a “democratic” method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.

  • toto

    Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
    It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).

  • regulus30

    I did not say that reread the post; and then go to “www.libertyheadlines.com/watchdog” and read it yourself.

  • regulus30

    NPVIC is NOT A “BILL”‘ it is a scheme to allow states to award their electoral votes by “popular vote” it is not Constitutional. So far ten [10] states and the District of Columbia have shown interest; Guess which states want to play “liberal ones”.

  • toto

    Of COURSE it is a bill.

    On February 11, 2016, Georgia Senate President Pro Tempore David Shafer (R) and Minority Leader Steve Henson (D), and others introduced the National Popular Vote bill in the Georgia Senate (SB 376)
    http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/157385.pdf

    The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 has passed in the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
    It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

  • toto

    The founders created the Electoral College, but the states made it winner-take-all.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “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.”

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

  • toto

    You said “280 precincts audited so far have MORE PEOPLE ON THEIR VOTER LOGS than live in each specific area.”

  • Concerned

    As Tannim states above, you are delusional. Where have you been hiding, with most of your posts today being wrong or a bit twisted in your logic. California has changed dramatically over the last 25 years. Democrats have majorities in both houses and in fact have super majorities so they can make and do make all the laws for their benefit and the Republicans can do nothing to stop these crazy laws. California now has primary votes in which Democrats and Republicans both run, but only the top two vote-getters are allowed to compete in the final elections. So many times, California now has two Democrats running against each other with no Republican in sight. Now that illegals are voting, the problem is getting worse and with the financial instability, at the sign of the first recession, numerous cities will attempt to declare bankruptcy. Both debt and unfunded liabilities are a huge problem for the state, along with the state and property taxes.
    California has not recently had Republican governors. Although Schwarzenegger ran as a Republican, all of his actions and interface with his legislature drove the Democratic agenda during his entire administration. In fact, I believe it was during his administration that the Democrats succeeded in obtaining the super majority in both houses.

  • Marcopolo

    The authors of the biased article referenced here, need to take a time out and read Dr. Brion McClanahan’s book “How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America,” before using anything he said as a basis for an argument. Many of the posters here need to read some REAL history of the period and the founding of the REPUBLIC, not democracy, a REPUBLIC and know the difference.
    That drivel we were all indoctrinated with in HS and Uni, isn’t real, just like the article isn’t real news, is opinion not founded on basic historical facts, doesn’t recognize the brilliance of the founders that without the “college,” the central government would be controlled by the major population centers, not representative of the REPUBLIC as a whole.
    Hamilton also wanted the “President” to be King for Life, same with Senators. The states lost their Constitutional right to appoint Senators and got dropped of the “scale” to keep the central government in check with States Rights. One of several reasons why we’re in such a mess.

    Olsen needs to go back and read some history, and Haas needs to also, or some electroshock therapy. Enough with the “National Popular Vote Bill” stuff. The system works as designed. The Dem’s and their non-indicted leadership screwed up. Cali has more voters than people over the age of 18!
    Hamilton was also a lawyer…defense rests;-)

  • toto

    The founders created the Electoral College, but the states made it winner-take-all.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “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.”

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

  • toto

    Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
    With the National Popular Vote bill, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to indirectly elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

    Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island conducted popular elections for Governor. If popular election of a state’s chief executive meant that these four states were not a “republic,” then all four would have been in immediate violation of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”). If the states were not “republics,” the delegates from these four states would not have voted for the Constitution at the Convention and these four states would never have ratified the Constitution.

    Madison’s definition of a “republic” in Federalist No. 14: “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” Also Federalist No. 10.

    The United States would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), under a district system (such as used by Maine and Nebraska), or under the proposed national popular vote system (in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states and the District of Columbia).

  • toto

    Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

    16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

    16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
    The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

  • parthenon1

    No it wont work or be successful if it did ! How many of us would want our president to be from Wash, Ore, Calif, NY, NJ etc we wont have a country any more that any one would want to live in. Now if the rest of the country seceded from the East and Western coastal states and left them to die on the vine so be it. Cal would be a part of Mexico very quickly and Wash and Oregon would become little bittle nations weaker than they are in the uS combination !

  • Marcopolo

    Well, when Ca has more voters than people over 18, and in Chicago, where I used to reside, the dead do vote, all the percentages and data you quote is just GIGO. Somehow, we all believe if we put erroneous data into expensive machines, it will somehow produce valid results. Only Citizens vote, and states have no idea, nor can keep a tally of “real” citizens. They don’t keep up the registration rolls, it’s illegal in some locales to request a drivers license to ensure the person really resides in the voting district, or is even a citizen of the country. Frankly, the BS around the Nat Pop Vote Bill is junk stats. Since “man made global warming” has been suffering the slings and arrows of real stats, this Bill is the next game on the progressive agenda.
    An agenda which has not brought anything but loss of rights, and liberty and other freedoms for the last 100+ years.
    We are a REPUBLIC. Today that’s mostly in name only as the central government from Washington/Hamilton/Jackson/Lincoln/Wilson/et. al. Enough with the progressive agenda.
    The only reason this issue has come up is the Dems and their Leadership lost the pres election. Dems/Repubs doesn’t matter. Let’s take a step forward by getting back to what the founding document laid out. Then we’ll talk. In the meantime, it’s all part of someone’s agenda to continue the shredding that document.

  • Marcopolo

    What you’re not getting is that the STATES are (were) STATES. Just like France or Germany is a STATE. The central government was to be small as defined. The central government has been eroding STATES RIGHTS since about when the ink wasn’t yet dry on the Constitution. The central government is a compact of the several sovereign STATES to come together and leave if they chose.
    The central government killed huge numbers of people to make sure that RIGHT wouldn’t ever come up again.
    Think small. Think counties (which are created by STATES), Think STATES. Think small central government. Then the need for any bill changing the election of a president of a voluntary union of STATES is completely unnecessary.
    Like all things of late, losers want to change the rules of the game. The central government has been doing that since 1789.
    Give it a rest.

  • toto

    In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

  • toto

    With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

    The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

    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. State-by-state winner-take-all laws 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.

    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.

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38 states and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained 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.”

    Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

  • Concerned

    The Electoral College is mandatory for our nation to survive. Yes, it can be modified, but must be done so very carefully and cannot stamp on state’s rights. Any laws or “rules” that step on state’s rights need to be evaluated very carefully and it is my guess that states will not give up their rights without a constitutional amendment.
    Remember that the majority is not always right and sometimes a takes quite a while for smart people to understand the real issues and what is best for America, which is seldom the vote of the majority that can be easily swayed by a good speaker.

  • toto

    In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
    ? appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
    ? appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
    ? popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
    ? popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
    ? popular election using congressional districts,
    ? popular election using multi-member regional districts,
    ? combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
    ? appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
    ? statewide popular election.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use winner-take-all laws

  • toto

    Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
    “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

    In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
    “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

    Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

    Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

    Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

    Since 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

  • toto

    39,250,000 CA total population
    29,437,500 CA residents over 18 years old. (75%)
    13,237,589 voted D or R in 2016.

  • toto

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “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 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 abolish 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), in the enacting 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 retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. 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, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 has passed in the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
    It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

  • Marcopolo

    Electioneering isn’t the issue. Seems like you’re taking a lot of your time so I assume you’re fairly passionate about the issue.
    I would only offer this whole issue occupies less time than I have spent posting. It all doesn’t matter who captains the Titanic.
    We need to focus more on “ship of state” building, than who gets into the wheelhouse.
    There’s the ship; there’s the ice. Fait accompli.
    I’m already in my lifeboat, so I care little about the issue. I spend my time learning and educating others so they may focus on the real issues and not “electioneering” nor kneeling millionaires at sports contests, or “tweets.”
    What we have isn’t good; what we avoided was worse.

    Have a pleasant evening. Signing off.

  • Peter

    And what kind of exhibit are you ‘stoop’? And what’s your breeding? I’ve got ‘noos’ for ya. When you stir up Nth Korea, China and Russia to come against you, you’re going to come off second best if you’re one of that warmongering nation. The east wind the wind of the LORD is coming against you. Hosea 13:15 RSV. Against an oppressive western democratic Republic superpower that wants to ‘do in’ its own sovereign borders, that “Went west young man”. Look at Hawaii. Look at Alaska. You can’t get further west than Alaska where west meets east along the International Dateline. The cyclones came across the Atlantic like the east wind in the sails of the Mayflower in 1620. Now the metaphoric ‘east wind sword’ is not wind but a ‘sword’ that can travel west like Japan attacking Pearl Harbour in Hawaii – just a small example of what is coming your way, big time this time.
    And its jerks like you who ask for it. Jerks like you that make America in the west a jerk too. Live by the sword, and live out the rest of that saying, ‘Jerk’.
    Ephraim herds the east wind, and pursues the east wind ALL DAY LONG. Hosea 12:1 RSV. “Go west young man.”
    The east wind comes from the east and blows west. Ephraim is America. America is the West. You cannot get further west than where east meets west, at Alaska.
    America is rich, oppressive Hosea 12:7-8. A superpower Hosea 13:1.
    America’s time is up. Your time is up. Ephraim must lead forth his sons to SLAUGHTER. Hosea 9:13.
    Run for your life ‘stoopid’. Stop living your mythical life. Get real. America is rotten to its depraved core governmentally. This is all the politics you need as America is a puppet – a stooge, a shadow for the bloodletting Vatican gunning for its NWO with America out of the way, non existent, no more.
    America is not under the shadow of God Hosea 14:7 Which is why God is the politics and no myth, that you need to fear. It is God himself who is coming against you. If not this time. Ultimately. But the time is right, if now. Your elected king (President) will be utterly cut off. No more presidency. No more Republic. Wanderers among the nations to be – as refugees yourselves. You wind up as slaves in Egypt for your Apathy.
    Get with it. Wise up cowboy! Herd that east wind coming now!
    The (war) horse prepares for the battle. But the victory belongs to God. Proverbs 21:31.

  • regulus30

    And? It ain’t going to happen.

  • regulus30

    the reason this won’t happen is there are already 34 states committed to calling a “Convention of States” and silly crap like this will be dealt with.

  • toto

    You said NPVIC is NOT A “BILL”

  • GARY ZIERK

    THE REASON WE HAVE AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS BECAUSE OUR FOUNDERS WANTED TO PREVENT MOB RULE !

  • regulus30

    It is not a bill, it might be at a state level, it is not at a national level. that is what I was saying. I had no idea what level of gov. you were referring to; “National Popular Interstate Vote” is a pact of some states/DC which controls 165 [30.1%] of the electoral votes, to be implemented it must control 61.0%; what this really tells you is that only 30% of America is controlled by left wing nut jobs.

  • regulus30

    it was only 248 , my bad; I did not say it; I gave the http://www.libertyheadlines.com/watchdog. READ IT.

  • regulus30

    I DID NOT “SAY’ anything, I repeated a proven fact. http://www.libertyheadlines.com/watchdog. quit being ignorant and read the article.

  • toto

    Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes.
    2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
    Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

    The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

    The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 24,067 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 31 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party (one clear faithless elector, 29 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

    States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors

    The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

    If any candidate wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent that candidate from being elected President of the United States

  • toto

    regulus30 • 21 hours ago
    another thing to remember here;; THERE IS MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD, just reported today that 280 precincts audited so far have MORE PEOPLE ON THEIR VOTER LOGS than live in each specific area.

    You did not include a link.

    Again. That doesn’t prove that more people actually VOTED than live in each specific area

  • toto

    It is a state bill. That’s why it is being enacted by states.

    The bill needs states with 270 electoral votes (the majority) to go into effect.
    It is 61% of the way.

    Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5) are not bastions of “left wing nut jobs.”

  • regulus30

    I think I am hearing an echo of my words.

  • regulus30

    UNTIL every liberal state joins the rest of us and requires a voter ID and proof of citizenship, your poly-anna scheme is just an attempt to usurp the Constitution ; which is nothing new for liberals.

  • toto

    Pollyannas?

    Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

    Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
    “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

    In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
    “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

    Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969),

  • regulus30

    Actually I like a national primary system where the top three voter getters run in a national election. That eliminates the left and right coasts from dictating their liberal policies to the other 52% of us.

  • regulus30

    read this ; “www.constitution.com/devastating.dnc hack inside” if you wonder why I think you and your followers are crooks.

  • regulus30

    Understanding there a some prominent politicians voicing their support for your scheme, it does NOT negate the reason for the “electoral college”; which basically is in place to keep densely populated areas of the nation from becoming the decision makers for all Americans It just so happens liberals voter base is entrenched in big cities and densely populated states; I wonder how that happened?

  • Matthew V. Brown

    Thank you, Concerned!

  • toto

    Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

    16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

    16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
    The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

  • toto

    In 2012, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), voters in just 60 counties and DC could have elected the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters.

    Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

    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 less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

    But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included 7 states have voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 states have voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, 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.

    With National Popular Vote, it’s not the size of any given state, it’s the size of their “margin” that will matter.

    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) 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) 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).

  • toto

    Followers include:

    In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
    It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).

  • 10579

    Well,If you say so.You socialist Democrat.

  • 10579

    Of course it is the commie pinko left who is pushing for this and every thing else to take down this nation. Let me know when you socialists get blisters on your hands from working the earth.Oh what’s that, you don’t do menial labor that’s for the pee on working/middle class. I don’t give handouts to lefties.Work for your grub.

  • 10579

    You are wasting your time trying to explain to liberals and democrat socialists.

  • regulus30

    Voter ID’s and proof of citizenship; more important than tinkering with the system right now. Liberals think this will given them eternal power.

  • regulus30

    Seems to me when there is a winner take all “that is victory” by a simple majority? Of all the ex-potus candidates referred to in past elections in the article supporting NPVIC it is interesting they have ALL TURNED out to be real life losers as well. McCain, Kerry, Gore.

  • parthenon1

    I dont care if someone quotes the entire dictionary on a subject, this one was designed to prevent the more populist states from getting undur control and it is working and has since our nation began. I dont care if there are polls stacked 10 feet high its easy to fill these poll figures from the East and West coasts so I consider them to be just waht they are. The only problem here is those people who wont shut up and accept the fact Donald Trump is the president and Crooked Hillary” The God mother of the Clinton Crime family is not. If she had stolen the election by some way we would have been in a shooting war where the liberals cant win !

  • John Higgins

    Does she ever shut up? If California pulls out of the union maybe America could consider looking at the electoral college?

    Perhaps we could consider becoming a Kingdom and making Hilary and Bill King and Queen. Of course Bill would become Queen.

  • Joseph R. Davis

    Actually, the Electoral College was supposed to prevent people like Trump from being elected. It was a miserable failure this time, and Trump is a miserable failure as well.

  • Joseph R. Davis

    I guess it was pretty much a failure this time, right?

  • Jimmy Coleman

    BS

  • Mark Wynn

    The Founding Fathers were well-versed in the historical pitfalls of one-person one-vote. It’s like two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. That’s why, for the nationwide presidential election, we have the Electoral College.

  • Mark Wynn

    Nice try. The so-called National Popular Vote would be an end-round the Electoral College.

  • toto

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “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 current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became predominant until 1880 — almost a century after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

    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), in the enacting 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 retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

  • toto

    The founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “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.”

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

  • Mark Wynn

    toto, you didn’t view the succinct, 5-min vid explaining the Electoral College, did you. What are you afraid of?

  • Mark Wynn
  • Mark Wynn

    Trump carried the majority of voters in 2,626 counties across this great republic, while Hillary carried only 487 counties in high-density, Democrat metroplexes.
    Hillary’s “popular” narrow vote advantage came from one state (CA) and one city (NYC.} Personally, I don’t want LaLaLand and NYC hijacking the will of the rest of the nation. Hence, the Electoral College.
    “Popular vote” is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. It’s a tyranny of the majority, and once established in power, they change the rules … and kiss your individual rights and freedoms goodbye.

  • toto

    In 2012, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), voters in just 60 counties and DC could have elected the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters.

  • toto

    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.

  • toto

    Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

    In 2000, 537 popular votes in Florida determined that the candidate who had 537,179 less national popular votes would win.

    Less than 80,000 votes in 3 states determined the 2016 election, where there was a lead of over 2,8oo,ooo popular votes nationwide.

    Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in 1, 2, or 3 states would have elected a 2nd-place candidate in 6 of the 18 presidential elections

  • toto

    Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

    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 less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

  • toto

    “The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The National Popular Vote states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
    – Vikram David Amar – professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.

    In Gallup polls since 1944 until before this election, 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 has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state’s winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

    Question 1: “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”

    Question 2: “Do you think it more important that a state’s electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?”

    Support for a National Popular Vote
    South Dakota — 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
    Connecticut — 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
    Utah — 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2

  • toto
  • toto

    Trump received more votes in California than he got in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia combined.
    None of the voters or votes in California for Trump, helped Trump.

    California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.

    The vote difference in California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.

    California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
    31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton

    In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
    About 62% Democratic

    California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.

    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).

    With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all votes for all candidates in California will matter.

  • toto

    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 abolish 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), in the enacting 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 retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

  • Mark Wynn

    Our current royalty are named Obama.

  • Mark Wynn

    Spot-on, Gary. They were will-versed in “popular” vote pitfalls of their times and throughout history.

  • Mark Wynn

    Perhaps a partisan agenda has affected your objectivity?

  • Mac

    Do they want to eliminate the Senate as well? They’re both based on the same idea; that the populous states don’t rule the sparce ones.

  • Diana Hess

    Election fraud. Get rid of the illegal, dead, voters and Trump won by a landslide.