WITHOUT ELECTORAL COLLEGE COUNTRY COULD DISINTEGRATE
WISDOM OF FOUNDERS IS AGAIN EVIDENT
When the country was founded, when the union was formed, the founders and the representatives from the various states where concerned about the preservation of state and individual right. They addressed those concerns with the bill of rights.
They also were concerned that the large population centers of Philadelphia, New York and Boston would be able to have the populations to control the direction of the country. In their wisdom they devised the electoral college. This system gave states a electoral vote for each representative from their state. The more population, the more votes, but only to match their representatives. The candidate who won the majority of the votes in each state would win all the electoral votes assigned to that state. They also balanced the influence in congress by allowing each state to have 2 Senators. While not perfect this is probably the most fair way of electing presidents that we could have.
A look at the map above shows the red counties that voted for Trump and the blue areas for Clinton.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3.084 counties Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York, Trump won 46, Clinton 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by 1.5 million.
Clinton won over 2 million more votes than Trump in just the 5 boroughs New York city.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles, The United States comprises 3,797,000 square miles.
If we elected according to the popular vote, the large cities of America would control the whole of the country.
I suspect the union would have been impossible and would now not last a decade if such a policy would be adopted.
Have no fear, To change from the electoral college to the popular vote would require the vote of 34 states. The states are unlikely to give this up.
95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, and only a few states let males, with substantial property, vote,
ReplyDeleteClinton won 487 counties nationwide, compared with 2,626 for President-elect Donald Trump.
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) has been only 6% of the population of the United States.
ReplyDeleteVoters in the biggest cities in the US have been 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.
California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million).
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 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).
ReplyDeleteSupport 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.
There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district or county. 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. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. 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 36 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), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5).
The bill has been enacted by 12 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 172 electoral votes – 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.
When enacted by states with 270 electors, the bill would change their 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, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.
Toto, So, finally I see that you support a popular vote, I believe if it is really proposed as a constitutional amendment, it will not pass, but if it would, it would set in motion moves for the division of the country into several separate entities, witch may be the only way for a peaceful resolution to the division in the country.
ReplyDeleteThe National Popular Vote bill is states replacing 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 guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
How in the world do you think there would be a "division of the country into several separate entities?"
ReplyDeleteThe 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 36 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), 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), Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
The bill has been enacted by Connecticut (7), 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).