Interview With Rand Paul

[Bravo-4-2]

I'm not saying that just because I would have taken Gore over Bush any day of the week........

Did you truly consider this statement before posting it? Hopefully, no one would argue that Bush 43 (or 41 for that matter) was an overly good POTUS, but to suggest that one would have preferred Algore in 2000 renders anything else you might offer in the discussion irrelevant.

 

[jamil]

Did you truly consider this statement before posting it? Hopefully, no one would argue that Bush 43 (or 41 for that matter) was an overly good POTUS, but to suggest that one would have preferred Algore in 2000 renders anything else you might offer in the discussion irrelevant.

I wasn't thrilled with Bush either. But Al Gore is such a putz. I can totally imagine him urinating down his leg when 9/11 happened. Of course I doubt we'd have gotten into the Iraq war, but likely Al would have just lobbed a $1M missile towards a $100 tent in the middle of the dessert and called "mission accomplished".

Probably would still have had NDAA, and some form of the PATRIOT act anyway. With Gore: net equivalent on loss of freedom, net gain on socialism, net gain on taxes, net gain on moon bat enviro policies. Domestically, we were probably better off the way it happened.

 

[MisterChester]

You are laughing, but how about applying your idea of right and proper to the legislative branch. The parallel of abolishing the EC would be to abolish the Senate and have a unicameral legislature and perhaps allow two or more smaller states who would not meet the numerical threshold for one representative to pool together for a shared seat. Does that sound like a good idea?

No, because small states have legitimate power in the senate. They don't have that in the EC.

 

[MisterChester]

Did you truly consider this statement before posting it? Hopefully, no one would argue that Bush 43 (or 41 for that matter) was an overly good POTUS, but to suggest that one would have preferred Algore in 2000 renders anything else you might offer in the discussion irrelevant.

Not saying I was happy with Al Gore, I would have preferred him. It's funny, some of you here actually prefer W, when he stood against many things we are for.

 

[Twangbanger]

Not saying I was happy with Al Gore, I would have preferred him...

Did you stick your head in the oven when Adam Lambert lost on American Idol? The unfairness and homophobia of the American System must have just tormented you.

But jesting aside, as a presumptively older guy, I get the fact that Election 2000 was your generation's "Woodstock." I just don't understand why. It's time to let the Butthurt go. Al Gore was The. Biggest. Hypocrite who ever ran for U.S. President. We're talking about a guy living in a, what, 13,000 sq. ft. mansion, with an electric bill higher than the average American's mortgage? And he's cajoling us all about our internal combustion engines? Just, wow.

I do not understand where the Electoral College came from, nor do I like it, no do I care about it very much. But, it did save us from suffering the Biggest Hypocrite ever to get his name on a ballot. For that, it's worth its weight in Gold. I'm satisfied to admit that for once, the screwed-up system actually did us little people a favor.

Good enough for me. Let it go, man.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Did you stick your head in the oven when Adam Lambert lost on American Idol? The unfairness and homophobia of the American System must have just tormented you.

But jesting aside, as a presumptively older guy, I get the fact that Election 2000 was your generation's "Woodstock." I just don't understand why. It's time to let the Butthurt go. Al Gore was The. Biggest. Hypocrite who ever ran for U.S. President. We're talking about a guy living in a, what, 13,000 sq. ft. mansion, with an electric bill higher than the average American's mortgage? And he's cajoling us all about our internal combustion engines? Just, wow.

I do not understand where the Electoral College came from, nor do I like it, no do I care about it very much. But, it did save us from suffering the Biggest Hypocrite ever to get his name on a ballot. For that, it's worth its weight in Gold. I'm satisfied to admit that for once, the screwed-up system actually did us little people a favor.

Good enough for me. Let it go, man.

I gotta think the guy who penned "........That all men are created equal......" while actually owning people is at least as big a hypocrite.

 

[jamil]

Did you stick your head in the oven when Adam Lambert lost on American Idol? The unfairness and homophobia of the American System must have just tormented you.

But jesting aside, as a presumptively older guy, I get the fact that Election 2000 was your generation's "Woodstock." I just don't understand why. It's time to let the Butthurt go. Al Gore was The. Biggest. Hypocrite who ever ran for U.S. President. We're talking about a guy living in a, what, 13,000 sq. ft. mansion, with an electric bill higher than the average American's mortgage? And he's cajoling us all about our internal combustion engines? Just, wow.

I do not understand where the Electoral College came from, nor do I like it, no do I care about it very much. But, it did save us from suffering the Biggest Hypocrite ever to get his name on a ballot. For that, it's worth its weight in Gold. I'm satisfied to admit that for once, the screwed-up system actually did us little people a favor.

Good enough for me. Let it go, man.

How do you know that Bush would have lost the popular vote had it actually mattered?

I gotta think the guy who penned "........That all men are created equal......" while actually owning people is at least as big a hypocrite.

He was a product of his time. No excuses. It's just that period's definition of men. What would you do about it if you were a product of that era? Would hou have acted or even thought better? I think it's often best not to judge hipocrisy unless I know a man's heart.

 

[arthrimus]

No, because small states have legitimate power in the senate. They don't have that in the EC.

Based on the number of presidential candidate visits they get? Because so far that's the only "proof" that you or any of the other Electoral Collage haters have given to support that claim.

Not exactly a smoking gun.

 

[Henry]

Reason caught up with Rand Paul and interviewed him. It's a good interview and Paul points out where the republicans need to go to win in the future. Sadly, I think there are far too few who would take his advice. I do think he'd make a decent republican candidate in '16, but I don't see the establishment getting behind him. They'd rather run Romney again. Or the fat man.

Rand Paul: Republicans Can Only Win if "They Become More Live and Let Live" - Hit & Run : Reason.com

[video=youtube_share;Gftp95SqFm4]http://youtu.be/Gftp95SqFm4[/video]

Good discussion.

 

[kohler]

. . . A loser winning the EC can and probably will happen again in the future.

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.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

 

[kohler]

J. . . But as the large states have become more polarized, I just see a future dynasty of collectivist tyranny over the smaller 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 a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, 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.

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) 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). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone 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).

 

[kohler]

. . . .contrary to popular belief, the EC gives the smaller states more leverage than they would have otherwise. . . . .

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

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.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. 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.

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. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

NationalPopularVote

 

[Redhorse]

Hear ya Jamil. I always vote "conservative", but haven't been happy with the candidate since Reagan...and I didn't always agree with him, but it was good enough.


Redhorse, I would vote for Rand, but I don't think he has a dog's chance of getting the nod. The only way the Republicans will get what he's saying is when they lose so many times it just doesn't matter any more. If anything 27 years of marriage has taught me is you have to pick your hill to die on. Repubs keep picking the wrong hills.

Please look at the current match up and pollings that Rand Paul has against Hilary (and maybe Warren if one is out) for inspiration. He does have a chance, I at least have hope and confidence in him. Why would you not vote for him if he represents your best interests and is who you want for president? Have faith friend

Why? Why should largely populated states get to choose presidents who favor them? Flyover country? Do you think that presidential candidates would visit Wyoming more often if there were no electoral college? They visit states that give them the most bang for the buck. With no electoral college they'll spend more time in the big cities because that's where they'll reach the most people.




I don't think it's a relic. And Must be abolished? Well, I have mixed feelings about the EC. On the one hand it does help rural states gain some protection from the "tyranny of the majority" thing.

On the other hand, I don't believe the EC helps all that much. If you're a "democrat" sort of guy, you should love the EC. Large metropolitan areas favor and breed a collectivist mentality. Rural areas, more of an individualist mentality. Big cities are getting bigger. Rural areas not so much. States where a huge chunk of their population is in large cities, west coast, eastern seaboard, are all democratic strongholds. They will always and forever, as long as moonbeams control the Democratic party, send spend their EC votes on Democrats. Anyone but democrats might as well not bother to vote for president their ballots are not much more than protest votes.

With the EC Republicans have a very narrow path to the WH. Even though republicans might lose the advantage that the EC gives them for states like Wyoming and Montana, a straight up vote would at least count the tens of millions of votes that mean nothing now.



So people who lived in rural areas and have rural world views should move somewhere else because Chicago got big enough to outvote them? Actually, if you want Chicago to have the most say, keep the EC so the rural votes don't matter.

One of the most difficult parts of assembling a unified nation was the threat of the large states running roughshod over the smaller ones, as would definitely happen in anything approximating a democracy, and, of course, the large states objecting to small ones having an equal vote at the national level. The federal republic was deliberately engineered to balance to mitigate both problems. In fact, I would argue that it was one of the most perfect political compromises in world history, and one that definitely should be left as it is. A major part of the possibility of a person winning with less than a majority of the popular vote was not only deliberately engineered into the system for the aforementioned reasons, but rests on the way a state apportions its electoral votes, again with the state's choice of apportioned delegates or 'winner take all'. That is a state issue, not a federal one.

First, given that the popular and electoral votes are generally parallel, it is rarely a deciding factor. Second, contrary to popular belief, the EC gives the smaller states more leverage than they would have otherwise

Rarely a deciding factor? Where were you in 2000? It could have been a non-issue if the EC didn't exist. I'm not saying that just because I would have taken Gore over Bush any day of the week, I'm saying that because I cannot support a system that allows losers to win because of some weird consequence of rules.

I pointed out in a previous post on how this "leverage" that small states have is not an important factor. If it did give them the leverage that is oh-so important, then candidates would visit states like Wyoming, the Dakotas, Vermont, and every other state that only has 3 or 4 votes. But they don't. The only states that got any attention from candidates in that range were New Hampshire and Maine. And it was only one or two visits, at best. If they don't get any attention by candidates, then the leverage is meaningless.

Third, all other elections you mentioned are confined within one state. The purpose of federalism is to afford an equitable apportionment of influence in Washington between the states which the EC was a brilliant part of that effort, with the other major element being the two-house legislative branch. Both, incidentally, were established as they were for the same reason. Fourth, eliminating the EC is tantamount to repudiating federalism in favor of a nationalist democracy, which is exactly what our founders sought to avoid for reasons I find perfectly reasonable even if they seem unnecessary by the standards of those in the present who do not understand those reasons. As for not needing it any more, I would argue the exact opposite. We need the balance of power to swing further toward the states rather than Washington, not the other way around. By virtue of cutting the state governments out of the process, direct election of senators was a major step toward the aforementioned nationalist government (as opposed to federalism). Direct popular vote for president would have a similar effect. I am not surprised by the support for such a scheme given that we now have a population which has been largely trained to accept states as super-counties rather than the self-determining entities they were established to be at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

There is a reason why we decided to directly elect senators. If it worked as intended, we would not have changed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Issues

The office of the President is the only office of the federal government where citizens of every state vote for the same candidates. There is no need for the states to get involved in this election. The founding fathers, as brilliant as they were, were far from perfect. They got many more things right than they did wrong. The fugitive slave law is in the constitution and is still technically the law of the land. So is the 3/5ths Compromise. I believe they were wrong on how to elect presidents as well. If we have democratic, direct votes of our representatives then there is no reason to have the same for the president. Like I said before, the states are not required to even have elections for the electors. Even in a republic, that is a rare find. So rare that not a single government in the world that is a western democracy/republic has a system like we do. A loser winning the EC can and probably will happen again in the future.

No, because small states have legitimate power in the senate. They don't have that in the EC.

I've read all of these, twice in some instances, and keep coming to the same conclusion; keep the EC but goby congressional district in ALL the states and do away with the winner-takes-all system. Example: The majority of Illinois population is located in Chicago but do they represent the will of ALL of the state of Illinois? Of course not. If the EC is set up the way I have described it, presidential candidates will win only the congressional district that contains Chicago and not the entire state. If they win the entire state, it's because they win all the distracts.

 

[Henry]

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

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.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. 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.

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. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

NationalPopularVote

The 17th must be repealed.

 

[Twangbanger]

Hmmm...wonder why Reason couldn't manage one question about immigration, given that it's been a hot topic in the news?

 

[kohler]

. . . Do you think that presidential candidates would visit Wyoming more often , , , ? They visit states that give them the most bang for the buck. . . . .

With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of Americans live in rural areas. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

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 and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.

If big cities always controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A 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.

Even 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 an 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.

With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

With National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states or (gerrymandered) districts would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.

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.

 

[kohler]

, , , keep the EC but go by congressional district in ALL the states and do away with the winner-takes-all system. Example: The majority of Illinois population is located in Chicago but do they represent the will of ALL of the state of Illinois? Of course not. If the EC is set up the way I have described it, presidential candidates will win only the congressional district that contains Chicago and not the entire state. If they win the entire state, it's because they win all the distracts.

Maine (since passing a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since passing a state law in 1991)use the congressional district winner method.
Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***

A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).


&&&&

Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.

“In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, the Republican nominee still managed to carry nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts. If the by-district scheme had been in place for that election, Romney would have collected nine of Michigan’s 16 electoral votes — not enough to change the national result, but enough to make Michigan a net win for Romney, notwithstanding his decisive drubbing in the statewide election.” – Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press, Jan. 12, 2014

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there are now only 35 "battleground" districts that were competitive in the 2012 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 92% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

In Maine, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored). In 2012, the whole state was ignored.

In Nebraska, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant. In 2012, the whole state was ignored.

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

 

[kohler]

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.

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.
[h=1]The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.[/h]80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

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."

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

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).

 

[Redhorse]

Maine (since passing a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since passing a state law in 1991)use the congressional district winner method.
Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***

A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).


&&&&

Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.

“In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, the Republican nominee still managed to carry nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts. If the by-district scheme had been in place for that election, Romney would have collected nine of Michigan’s 16 electoral votes — not enough to change the national result, but enough to make Michigan a net win for Romney, notwithstanding his decisive drubbing in the statewide election.” – Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press, Jan. 12, 2014

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there are now only 35 "battleground" districts that were competitive in the 2012 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 92% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

In Maine, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored). In 2012, the whole state was ignored.

In Nebraska, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant. In 2012, the whole state was ignored.

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

I've read this throughly and admire your in depth explanation, but am weary of your statistics. They have large margins and naturally make me question them. When have 77% of a state ever reliably agreed on anything? Some sources may be required. I don't question your credibility, just the validity of said statistics. If they are true, then I see real potential for a national popular vote.

 

[kohler]

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

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 [in the then] 18 battleground states.” [only 10 in 2012]

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.”

State-by-state winner-take-all laws adversely affects governance. Sitting Presidents (whether contemplating their own re-election or the election of their preferred successor) pay inordinate attention to the interests of “battleground” states.
** “Battleground” states receive over 7% more grants than other states.
** “Battleground” states receive 5% more grant dollars.
** A “battleground” state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations as an uncompetitive state.
** The locations of Superfund enforcement actions also reflect a state’s battleground status.
** Federal exemptions from the No Child Left Behind law have been characterized as “‘no swing state left behind.”

The effect of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system on governance is discussed at length in Presidential Pork by Dr. John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.