Accuracy in Media

MSNBC host Joy Reid sounded the alarm bells on Saturday when she tweeted that rural Americans pose a “core threat to our democracy” because a large majority of Americans is expected to live in the 15 largest states in 2040.

Reid’s tweet was in response to a Wall Street Journal column in which author Gerald Seib imagines how population shifts will to a disproportionate representation in the Senate in the future.

“Because of the way the Electoral College works, two of the past three presidents first won office while losing the popular vote. And David Birdsell, dean of the school of public and international affairs at Baruch College, notes that by 2040, about 70 percent of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states. They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30 percent of Americans will have 70 senators representing them,” Seib wrote.

Reid’s solution is one that many liberals and Democrats have proposed and that is the elimination of the Electoral College which they now consider outdated.

 

 

 





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

Comments

  • samo war
  • AndRebecca

    Ah, rural America. Obama did his best to get rid of rural America, but all he did was increase gun sales to rural Americans. The demographic shift to whites being in the minority in the entire country is supposed to take place before 2040. Asians will be in the majority and blacks still in the minority.

  • 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 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.

    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 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

    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.

  • 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.

  • AltVoice

    Why not place emphasis on the counties won across the country? If you look at the map, the one who has carried the nation becomes crystal clear. If the Electoral College system is to be replaced or revised in one way or another, then each State shouldn’t have two Senators, either. The Founding Fathers were more cerebral and knew how to balance things out much better than the current generation.

  • 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

    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.

  • 2PoorForAdobeCloud

    uMMMM…. no.

  • 2PoorForAdobeCloud

    Tyranny of the majority? Enslavement of the minority? No thanks.

  • toto

    Facts. see NationalPopularVote

  • 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!

  • Mr. W. H. Braden

    OMG is this woman educated? Lets turn this around and say this about African-Americans? Why is it open season on Whites? Only communists will stir things up and try to divide this great country. This woman is creating sedition.

  • AltVoice

    You’re more well read than most on the U.S. Constitution, but the so-called National Popular Vote bill will go nowhere. It’s only a scheme by those who don’t like the fact that winning the popular vote won’t give them the presidency.

  • toto

    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.

    Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the National Popular Vote plan would not help either party over the other.

    The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson.

    Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State

    Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:”A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”

    Laura Brod who served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

    James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

    Ray Haynes who served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

    Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

    Thomas L. Pearce who served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

  • AltVoice

    That simply means that most people think alike and share very similar, if not almost identical goals. The same can be said about those who profess to be adversaries in Congress.

  • American Spartan

    Try it. We will burn your urban hellholes clean of degeneracy and restore the Republic to its full glory

  • American Spartan

    Yeah, do not care. You want to rig the system as you are not able to win without cheating. The answer is no, deal with it, and if you do not take it for answer we will chuck you commie fucks out a chopper via Pinochet airlines.

  • American Spartan

    voters in just 60 counties and DC could have elected the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters.

    Thank you for making our point and killing your own.

  • toto

    Most Americans think the system is rigged now using the current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. It 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.

    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.

  • toto

    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.

    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.

  • toto

    Trump, October 11, 2017, on interview with Sean Hannity
    “I would rather have the popular vote.”

    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),.

    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),

    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.

  • toto

    No. With the National Popular Vote bill 26.3% of the voters from just 60 counties and DC would not be enough to win the most national popular votes in the country and the Presidency.

    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.

  • Tannim

    Typical liberals hating republicanism…they can rot in the urban ghettos while we ruralites thrive in the fresh air and nature.

  • American Spartan

    Tell you what, make NY/illinois/CA do this first and then maybe we will consider it.

  • American Spartan

    You can do the “look, this guy on your side said X, there fore you have to support Y” bit all you want, we are not falling for it anymore.

  • toto

    Done!

    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.
    The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), New York (29), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13). These 11 jurisdictions have 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

  • toto

    I’ve never said “you have to support” anything. I’ve presented facts of wide non-partisan support.

  • citizenw

    When the Constitution was written and the Great Compromise was set, Virginia, the largest population state, was 10 times the size of the smallest, Delaware. The Great Compromise accepted that ten times advantage for the smaller states.

    Within the last few decades, demographic changes have resulted in California having 80 times the population of Wyoming, and the gap is widening. The maximum disparity of representation is now 80:1, rahter than the agreed upon 10:1, and it will likely be 100:1 and widening in a few decades.

    This country was founded on the priciple of Conset of the Governed. It may not survive the next century being run by a small mostly rural minority of about ten percent of the population.

  • citizenw

    The root of the problem is in the Senate. Rather than Tyranny of the Majority, what we have now, effectively, is a tyranny of the minority. Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota each have about 0.5 million population. California, Texas and Florida have 40, 25, and 18 million, respectively, resulting in disparity ratios of 80:1, 50:1, and 36:1 respectively. And with further demographic changes, the disparity is widening.

    By the way, the original disparity agreed to in 1789 in the Great Compromise, and enshrined in the Constitution, was 10:1. The demographic changes of the past few decades have overturned the basis of that compromise. The question is whether this country can survive the century being run by a ten percent mostly rural minority.

  • Woody Weaver

    People like Joy Reid will use “democracy” like mob rule to tyrannize rural Americans if the Electoral College is ever abolished especially if her statement “about 70 percent of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states” is true. Since her Harvard education neglected understanding the purpose of the College, Mrs Reid wants rural Americans to enjoy the benefits of unrestricted immigration, gun control, hate speech laws, multiculturalism, and diversity. The Founders established the College to protect the rights of people in states with smaller population from predatory lunatics like Jerry Brown and Andrew Cuomo.

  • Ronald Chiasson

    Voter ID and only U. S. citizens vote and then maybe it wo

  • AltVoice

    You’re talking about a concept when Texas, Florida, and California weren’t even part of the Union. Furthermore, the Great Compromise preceded the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments: only white males could vote back then. I don’t think what you call disparity is relevant at all in today’s brave new world.

  • vladdy

    Guess she doesn’t understand how a Republic works. Maybe they could have “Constitutional Training,” like they force others into “Diversity Training.” Esp. if you’re commenting on the news. (Maybe you should have to pass a test, like for citizenship, before “analyzing” current events.)

  • vladdy

    Plus there’s also the fact that nobody knows who won the popular vote, thanks to the Dims and their open border/open polls policy.

  • vladdy

    Two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner? Naw, I’ll stick with the founders’ plan.

  • vladdy

    Wasn’t it not in the founders’ ideas because they never conceived of a federal government that would be stronger than the states, in the ability to plan their own policies for electoral votes?

  • toto

    There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

    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.

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

  • JohnAbramson

    Yea, lets keep it the way it’s been because we’re stubborn idiots. Half the states were not even in existence when this law was enacted. It’s funny how some people can read and write and seemingly articulate sentences, but they all quickly circle back to the “me, me and only me” part. Don’t play dumb. You are adults.

  • JohnAbramson

    One voice in Wyoming has the power of 80, in Los Angeles? That’s pretty awesome, folks. What did you do with THAT? More guns probably.

  • Mark Wynn

    The Founding Fathers were well-travelled and educated in history. They saw that a one-person, one-vote “pure democracy” system for electing a nation’s chief executive is fraught with pitfalls including a “tyranny of the majority.” The problems of a “pure democracy” are evident today. Look at Turkey, where a majority voted-in a strongman idealogue that then changed their constitution and judiciary so that he can remain in power regardless of popularity in the next election. The Democrats would do same. Look at the way President Obama used his executive fiats to create, change or ignore U.S. Law. Thankfully, we have the Electoral College, where citizens in states vote a pure democracy … for an electoral college representative … to vote for president. Otherwise, New York City and one state, California, would have elected the felon Hillary Clinton.

  • 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. Thanks

  • Mark Wynn

    The ignorance reflected in that comment only underscores the fundamental value of the Electoral College system for electing our presidents. No offense ….

  • Brad Hartliep

    That’s why we have .. wait for it .. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – where POPULATION DENSITY gives a state – like NY and CA and IL and TX and FL – and great big cities like NY and LA and SF and Dallas and Houston and Chicago and Minneapolis and St. Louis and, and, and .. more power to bully the little states (and the little rural counties) into conforming to moronic anti-rural urban ideology that’s driving this country into blue-collar slavery .. and the SENATE – where each state – even ones with very little population – and, more importantly, the FOOD and the WATER to feed the uneducated urbanites – the SAME power – to stop the Rich, uneducated Urbanites from telling the more intelligent poor what to do ..

  • RJ

    Harvard lost all credibility years ago…

  • RJ

    HITLERY DID NOT WIN THE POPULAR VOTE. THAT S A LIE!

  • irvpost

    This is the exact reason the founding fathers made this a republic instead of a pure democracy and the reason the electoral collage was implemented. It would be so easy to pack several states full of unemployable, welfare riddled slums and then have a huge voting block slanting the balance of power over the rest of the states.

  • irvpost

    I know I am getting myself in trouble here but…Also, does she really think several cities with hundreds of thousands of unemployed Jerry Springer guests should be deciding elections over thousands of rural farmers, nurses and factory workers. Last time I looked at an election map 90 percent of the US was red. The only parts that were blue, were the high density population areas were handouts are plentiful was really blue.