that is a deceptive answer. you also stated.. "The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods for awarding electoral votes that were debated and rejected" Our Constitution does reject a method that had been debated. Under the Constitution a direct national election for president can not happen.
Again. The National Popular Vote bill would not be a direct national election for president. All of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states in the Electoral College in December 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.
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." 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.” 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. In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support. Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?" Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?" Support for a National Popular Vote South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2. Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2, Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2 NationalPopularVote
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 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally. Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice. The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere. It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote; It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted. It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), It would not make every vote equal. It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country. The National Popular Vote bill 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 among all 50 states and DC becomes President.
The National Popular Vote bill is possibly the worst idea I have ever encountered in over 50 years of following U.S. election politics. I certainly hope that it quickly fades away into the oblivion it deserves.
The blue states all have a population that's smaller than Los Angeles county. This is why we have the Electoral College. Get it?