MoveOn Says Toss the Electoral College — Because They Want to Win Elections the Easy Way

By David Mills Published on November 19, 2017

Would you like to be governed by the big cities on both coasts plus Chicago and Detroit? Cities that can’t manage their own affairs very well? I didn’t think so.

MoveOn’s members do. The lefty activist group hosts a petition to “Abolish the Electoral College.” It demands “presidential elections based on popular vote. One person one vote to determine the one leader who is supposed to answer to all the people of the country.” It claims, as I write, 651,408 signers.

The Democrats’ Big Advantage

Democrats already have a big advantage even with the electoral college. As I wrote in May about Hillary Clinton’s astonishing ability to lose an election she had in the bag, the Democratic candidate starts knowing he’ll get almost one-third of the electoral college votes he needs. He gets them just by winning California and New York’s 84 votes. As he will.

He’ll also win Illinois, New England and the Pacific Northwest. That adds 48. He’s up to half of what he needs without breaking a sweat or spending a dime.

Normally safely Democratic Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin add 46. That’s 198 of the 270 he needs. Democratic-moving Florida and Virginia add 42. That makes 240.

What does the Republican have? 157 votes, if we take the states that voted Republican since 2000. Not nothing, but not 198 to 240 either.

You have to work hard to lose with an advantage like that. Or do stupid things, like not visit Wisconsin. Or pull some cheap tricks, like cheat Bernie Sanders and alienate his supporters. Here’s another good one: present yourself as a defender of the oppressed while taking vast amounts of money from the people they think oppress them.

Or insult people who might vote for you if you didn’t look down on them. Like calling them “a basket of deplorables. … Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.” Not a smart move, Hillary.

If the election were a 100 meter dash, the Democrat would start about 15 meters ahead of the Republican. He could lose, if he fell down or pulled a muscle. Otherwise he wins.

Here’s the explanation: “The Electoral College has outlasted its usefulness,” they say.

It is part of the constitution, written when communication was by pony express. Voters currently living and voting in a “red” or “blue” state are disenfranchised, because their vote doesn’t matter. Eliminating the electoral college means: no “swing” states getting all the attention and all the campaign stops and all the empty campaign promises. The electoral members are selected by the two main political parties, Republican and Democrat, disenfranchising all other voters, independent, Libertarian, etc. End it now.

The Real Result

I think we know why they want to abolish the electoral college: Because it prevents Democrats from winning every presidential election. Maybe I’m being unfair, but I don’t remember liberals showing much interest in the subject after Barack Obama’s two victories.

I don’t remember them being too annoyed with the electoral college after George Bush’s second election. But a Republican was elected, you object. Yes, but the Democrat came closer to winning the electoral college than he did the popular vote. Just 60,000 people in Ohio vote from him rather than Bush, he’s president, even losing the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.

So why do they want to abolish the electoral college, which favors them already? To make sure the country elects a Democrat. If you want the details, read my Clinton Won the Popular Vote, Yeah — Because of California. Make sure as far as politically possible, I mean, because this party lost an election it should have won the way water runs downhill.

The short version: Clinton won the popular vote by 2.86 million votes. She got all of those and way more — almost 4.3 million — in California. One state. By itself. 1.6 million of those came in Los Angeles county alone.

Without California, one state out of fifty, Clinton loses the popular vote by 1.4 million votes. Without California and New York, just two states out of fifty, she loses it by almost 3 million votes. Drop Illinois and she loses by almost 4 million votes. Add the other reliable Democratic states and she gets farther and farther behind. 

Almost forgot those midwestern cities. Chicago, for example, preferred Clinton to Trump by about 768,000 votes. That’s about one-quarter of her national advantage.

MoveOn’s Very Bad Argument

That’s why MoveOn’s petitioners want the president elected by a simple majority. Their argument doesn’t make a lot of sense. It rejects the electoral college because the people who created it used the technology of the time to send mail. (The Pony Express wasn’t created for another 75 years, but we’ll leave out that bit of historical ignorance.) Say what? Would the petition’s writer say that Plato and Aristotle hadn’t thought deeply about politics because they didn’t wear pants? Would they laugh at Abraham Lincoln because he didn’t write the Gettysburg Address on a Macbook Air?

It doesn’t get better. Voters in solidly Democratic or Republican states “are disenfranchised, because their vote doesn’t matter.” But of course their votes matter. They matter in giving each candidate the base he needs to win the election. OK, the vote of a guy in a swing state like Ohio might be (at a guess) .0000003% more likely to change the election than the vote of a guy in Texas or California. That doesn’t enfranchise him or disenfranchise his peers in solid Red or Blue states.

This is the funny one: “Eliminating the electoral college means: no ‘swing’ states getting all the attention and all the campaign stops and all the empty campaign promises.” Soooooo … their votes count because they get “empty campaign promises”? That’s a good thing? 

Anyway, even without the electoral college, the candidates will still go to the swing states more than the others. Because that’s where the swing voters are

Maybe the easiest way to counter the petition is this: Does anyone outside the leftwing of the Democratic party want to be ruled by the state that re-elects Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters, treated Harvey Weinstein as a god, and four times elected a governor named Moonbeam? 

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • SophieA

    I should think that Rhode Island and Wyoming might be a bit put out were this nonsense taken seriously.

    This is how children behave when they don’t get their way—they cry, whine, blame others, blame rules. Kinda how I picture Lucifer behaving when God gave him the eternal “time out.”

    • toto

      Rhode Island has enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

      A survey of Wyoming voters in 2011 showed 69% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

    • 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), 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, which would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, 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.”

      • SophieA

        I do not suffer fools or trolls. Take your nonsense elsewhere

        • toto

          I simply refuted your comments with facts and quotes.

          • SophieA

            Nonsense

    • 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), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).

      It changes 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.

  • Patmos

    And if Hillary hadn’t run such an awful campaign and won, does anyone honestly believe we’d see this stuff? The answer is an obvious no, so these selfish fools aren’t interested in justice at all.

  • toto

    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 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX)

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

  • toto

    If you’re a Republican in a blue state or a Democrat in a red state, your vote for president doesn’t matter to your candidate.

    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

    A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

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

    With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

    The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

  • toto

    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.

  • toto

    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 bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now their votes don’t matter to their candidate.

    In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters were minority party voters in their states.

    And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don’t matter to presidential candidates.
    Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.
    Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
    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

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

    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.”

  • 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).

    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.

    • benevolus

      Nobody comes to Wyoming, nor should they, because it is guaranteed to vote for the GOP nominee. Nobody campaigns in Mass., either, for the inverse reason.

      • toto

        A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

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

        With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Massachusettsor Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Massachusetts

  • toto

    During the course of polling, organizing, visiting, and spending on ads, 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    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.

    • benevolus

      Is this the plan that awards electors winner-take-all for each senator, and goes by congressional district for each member of the house?

      • toto

        No.

        All of the 270+ 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

    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), 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, which would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, 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

    Obama, like every other Democratic President won the Electoral College AND the national popular vote.

  • 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 with principles don’t shy away from their presidential candidates competing for equal votes throughout the country.

    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.

    The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and former Senators David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

    Supporters of the National Popular Vote bill include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)

    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.

  • Patmos

    toto, you’re clearly not in Kansas anymore. Big cities would get most if not all of the attention in a popular vote system. Not sure why that’s so hard to understand.

    • toto

      Look at how presidential candidates actually campaign today inside “battleground” states. Inside a battleground state, every vote is equal today and the winner (of all of the state’s electoral votes) is the candidate receiving the most popular votes.

      Ohio alone received almost 30% (73 of 253) of the entire nation’s campaign events in 2012.
      ● The 4 biggest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Ohio have 54% of the state’s population. They are Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo. Had 52% of Ohio’s campaign events.
      ● The 7 medium-sized MSAs have 24% of the state’s population. They are Akron, Canton, Dayton, Lima, Mansfield, Springfield, and Youngstown. Had 23% of Ohio’s campaign events.
      ● The 53 remaining counties (that is, the rural counties lying outside the state’s 11 MSAs) have 22% of the state’s population. Had 25% of Ohio’s campaign events.
      The 4 “battleground” states of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa accounted for over two-thirds of all campaign events in 2012

      In all 4 battleground states, presidential candidates—advised by the nation’s most astute political strategists—hewed very closely to population in allocating campaign events. Candidates campaigned everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas.

      When every vote is equal, every vote is equally important toward winning.

    • 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).

  • Jim Walker

    I’m listening to a broken record of Toto’s Africa…

  • benevolus

    The best thing to do to the EC is not to abolish it (which would take a constitutional amendment, guaranteed to fail because of the small states), it’s to reform it. Have two delegates elected winner-take-all in each state, but allot the rest according to the congressional districts in each state. Then, conservatives in NY and CA would have their votes matter a lot more, as would liberals in TX and OK. And candidates would have to campaign in almost every state, instead of just the swing states. At least one state already does this, so it would not require an amendment.

    • benevolus

      This plan would also increase turnout in states that were not previously in play, and could have a substantial effect on down-ballot elections. Consider CA. Dejected Republicans stay home in presidential years. Yet, local Republicans might have won if they had turned out. Another advantage of going by congressional district. California does have a number of Republican Congressmen, you know.

Inspiration
The Strangely Mysterious Beauty of Christmas
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us