That is very presumptuous of you. I have no reason to "rather have massive voter fraud than the real will of the people." Most American 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.
Guess you never looked into how at-large commissioners and council members are elected in some counties and cities.
you seem to saying that our constitution allows for a direct national election of the President. if you are... you have gone from being wrong to lying.
Maybe you haven't heard. It does not require a 'bill'. It requires a 'constitutional amendement' to remove this power from the states. It ain't happening PAL. I know you are all bitter that Hillary lost, but the bottom-line is Hillary is a loser. I will take George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson over Hillary Clinton, Hussein Obama, and Al Gore anyday.
Indeed. A lot of the obvious gets lost in this discussion. I mean this isn't a discussion about how to improve the electoral process is it? It's a discusssion about how to get democrats elected. I would laugh my arse off if the dems spent years to amend the constitution and then we had an election and the republican won with the popular vote even though the dems would have had enough for the electoral. You think ottoman would be saying, "gee I am still so glad we did all that." hehe. I don't thinkkkkkkkkkkkkkk so.
What I have discussed and described is not a direct national election of the President. The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538. All of the presidential electors from the enacting states, in December when the Electoral College meets and votes and elects the President as they do now, will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC).
Again. The bill is Not a constitutional amendment. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College. The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States. The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count. In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic. The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House. It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).
I am not your PAL. Again The Founders in the U.S. Constitution said "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College. The bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States. The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states. In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states. In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state. In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the 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. The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it. The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
"The 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." I think this has to be one of the most absurd proposals in the history of the United States. So if my state votes for the Republican presidential candidate -- as well as many others... but lost the popular vote by a single ballot country-wide then the Democratic candidate would be president -- all driven by highly populated cities (a classic example of the tyranny of the majority which our founding fathers warned us about). Talk about an abusive system where my vote does not count and is effectively switched to the other candidate... this proposal would be the top example. I could potential support a proposal where the EC votes of a individual state were split by the percentage voting for each candidate. For example, the 55 EC votes in California would be split between the candidates based on popular tally (for example 39 going to the Democatic candiate and 16 to the Republican candidate). This would drive EC votes to be more closely aligned with the popular vote, and allow EC representation of the "minority-party" voters in each state instead of winner take all.
Let us know how all that works out for ya. Sheesh. Get a frigging candidate and get a message and put a campaign together.