Clinton on Track to Win the Most Votes. Abolish the Electoral College!

by

by

Comments (63)

Comment Feed

I fully agree on abolishing

I fully agree on abolishing Electoral College.
But in that case, we must also introduce VOTER ID.

Whatever 155 days ago

Could the authors respond to

Could the authors respond to the comment which corrects about 1800 and also tell us who those vice presidents were which were slave holders and yet were VPS for both Adamses and Lincoln, and how did that happen please?
Thank you!

Laura 157 days ago

We can't let that WOMAN

We can't let that WOMAN become president either. Prepare to revolt in case she steals it, HONDURAS SHALL NOT FORGET, NOR WILL ALL OUR FELLOW LIBYAN VICTIMS!!!

Radiant Meadows 157 days ago

Too many brown people were

refugees, illegals and immigrants swayed the "popular vote".

Shangey D 160 days ago

It is unbelievable that the

It is unbelievable that the myth about fraud in the Florida vote during the Gore / Bush election still persists.

The ONLY reason this ever came up is because the media FALSELY proclaimed Gore to have won the vote BEFORE the vote count was completed. This led Democrats to believe that they had won.

When the vote count was terminated, Bush was found to have won.

Gore, bad loser, contested this outcome, which led to numerous re-counts of the all the votes.

Every single recount - as complete as they could be - yielded a Bush majority. Not a single recount ever found a Gore majority.

Here is the full legal text that shows that the Supreme Court had backed Gore's demand for a re-count, given how narrow the result had been. It had never unfairly sided with Bush. However, after contested votes had been manually re-counted several times and the result still favored Bush, they put an end to the bickering.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Start accepting the FACTS for what they are!

No, Jeb Bush could not have altered the result electronically, because all the ballots were available on paper - and they counted those paper ballots.

Pro Libertate 162 days ago

Once again, people on the

Once again, people on the left distinguish themselves through total ignorance of historical achievements that were the result of thousands of years of social and political thinking.

What we see is the arrogance of the ignorant who presume that 250 years ago, people must have been stupid.

In fact, the founders of the US were geniuses who knew exactly what they were doing. They had studied societies throughout history and integrated the ideas of the best and brightest when they created a FEDERATION that was supposed to be united, while allowing each member State maximum freedom.

For local rule is always best. Federal government should never interfere, except in matters of defense and issues affecting several States.

But most of all, in order to create unity, the people in each State had to feel they had fair representation.

Hence the Senate, which grants 2 seats to every State, independent of its population.

And the Electoral College, which ensures that a few States with large populations cannot simply dominate every presidential election.

It is more than obvious that people who live in very populous States develop entirely different attitudes from those who live in less densely populated regions.

Apparently, arrogant nitwits from the highly populated areas now think that their values (or absence thereof) should be imposed on everyone else.

They are not willing to accept that people in other States should also get represented at the executive level.

Well it is high time to inform you that if you had your way, the US would simply fall apart.

Abolish the electoral college and find yourself without 90% of the US land mass - and hence the resources of those wast regions - to back up your life style.

The system is as it is for a very good reason - and seeing the immature behavior of all who hate it is the best proof that it is perfectly good that they do not get their way.

Pro Libertate 162 days ago

"Abolish the electoral

"Abolish the electoral college and find yourself without 90% of the US land mass..."??? Where did you get that from? The proof of the intellectual bankruptcy of such conservative addicts of Latin as "Pro Libertate" is to be found in such kooky assertions as this. And now, America and the world are going to yet again be in the hands of minds like this. God help us all.

Spencer Harper 161 days ago

Wow! There is sure a lack of

Wow! There is sure a lack of understanding what the government if the United States is. Seriously, abolish the electoral college system? If this occurs, then our country will definitely remain split. The electoral college system allows rural American to have a voice in government. If we truly have a popular vote for president, then the cities where the majority of the population lies would control government. Yes, at times it seems like one's vote do not count. I live in California and I tend to vote Republican. My vote for president will mostly likely never count as California is controlled by our three city populations, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. I live in central California in the 5th largest city, but never will my vote count for president or even governor of our state. But as one looks at the landscape of our great and wonderful country, we realize that rural and city must both work together. I believe our founding fathers had an incredible understanding of this and thus created a republic and not a democracy. This is Civics 101. Just because one's candidate loses does not mean the system is broken, most likely it is because the message wasn't accepted or agreed upon by all people's groups, rural, city, urban alike. This is America where all is heard not just the loudest or even the small majority, but everyone.

Eric Hiett 163 days ago

The result could be improved

The result could be improved if, instead of abolishing the Electoral College, all states were required to send a delegation to the Electoral College that reflected the proportion of votes in that State, including votes to third parties. That way the College could more fairly represent the wishes of the electorate. The winner might not be the candidate winning the most votes but the candidate who was most acceptable to the delegates attending the College meeting.

Peter Moller 166 days ago

Same result as abolishing.

Same result as abolishing. You still need to change the Constitution.

Peg 160 days ago

Whaaa???

Whaaa???


It might be useful to see that there has been ONE instance of the electoral college voting differently than the public.


It might be useful to know enough history to know that the Founders were NOT worried about big state/small states but rather by fear that 'too much democracy" might allow for the election of a person not fit for office. The electoral college was meant to be a buffer against stupidity. (The Constitution also required that Senators be elected by their respective state legislators until the 17th Amendment.)


Jefferson/Adams: Adams was an unpopular president (Alien and Sedition Act, anyone?). Jefferson was his vice-president, as the "runner-up" of the electoral vote.

In 1800, the EC tied between Jefferson and Burr (who was his "running mate") , so it went to the House of R. After 35 ballots, A. Hamilton threw his vote to TJ. Jefferson/Burr got 2/3 of the popular vote, btw.
The EC tie was caused because they were trying to elect Jefferson with Burr as VP. After this, the the 12th Amendment required electors to cast votes specifically for President and Vice President. NOT an instance of "electoral college" voting differently than the general public. Also - Pennsylvania, NY - votes for Jefferson; South Carolina: 4 votes for Adams.



( Further, off topic-- it is difficult to see how the 3/5th Compromise "caused" (was "the reason why") people owned slaves. Even in "slave states," fewer than half of whites owned slaves. Lincoln's family moved from Kentucky to Illinois because Illinois was a free state. )



Hayes-Tilden; 1876 - the end of Reconstruction in the South. DEMOCRATS in the south were "redeeming" the south from Republican-backed voting rights for African -Americans. In 1876, South Carolina democrats nominated the former Confederate Wade Hampton for governor and vowed to get him elected "if we have to wade in blood knee-deep." Because of this situation, Congress (still under Republican control and still trying to protect Reconstruction principles) appointed special Electoral Commissioners in SC, Fla, Louisiana, and part of Oregon, who voted for Hayes. Behind the scenes, though -- Hayes got these votes in exchange for "non-interference" in the South, while the southern democrats pledged to respect civil and political rights of blacks. (We know how that turned out....)


The only "guns" that were involved in this were those held (at least metaphorically, possibly actually) to the heads of Republican-voting citizens, and the subsequent removal of Federal troops (and their guns) who were protecting black rights. It is NOT the case that the EC used guns to change votes, as implied in the above article.


1888 - true. Cleveland won by .7% but the EC vote was 233-168. 89% of the electorate voted.


2000 - Bush-Gore. The EC was NOT the body that prevented the Gore presidency. It was the Florida state government's voter suppression that prompted calls for a recount that was STOPPED by said Florida government, with complicity by the Supreme Court. Had the popular vote in FL been actually counted, their 29 votes would have gone to Gore.



There may be good arguments for abolishing the EC, but this article has not made a valid (historical) case.



To repeat: It might be useful to see that there has been ONE instance of the electoral college voting differently than the public.


It might be useful to know enough history to know that the Founders were NOT worried about big state/small states but rather by fear that 'too much democracy" might allow for the election of a person not fit for office. The electoral college was meant to be a buffer against stupidity. (The Constitution also required that Senators be elected by their respective state legislators until the 17th Amendment.)

Jocelyn M 166 days ago

I feel the Electoral College

I feel the Electoral College has outlilved is purpose. Today it has the effect of my one vote not having the value it should have. Each citizen's vote should have equal weight.

Phyllis Bailey 166 days ago

Even with the 2000 and 2016

Even with the 2000 and 2016 votes being what they were, nobody in Washington (not even Democrats) will support dismantling the Electoral College. It's like Citizens United ruling. Big talk, but most of them live for it. NOBODY is going to propose action to undo it apart from a handful of progressives that will be shut down quicker than you can say Bernie Sanders.
If you take it to a popular vote, that will give third parties a chance to grab more power and that is the absolute last thing any of them want. They'd rather stick with fighting for electoral votes. So we're stuck with it for now.
Remember super delegates? Where has that discussion gone? LOL maybe if we're lucky we can remember to be disgusted by it in another four years.

Mike 166 days ago

Our last hope is convincing

Our last hope is convincing Republican Electors to break ranks and vote for Hillary. Only 38 are needed. There's a movement to make this happen. Sign & share petition https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19?recruiter=59931859&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-reason_msg

Marilyn S 166 days ago

She didn't 'Win'!! This kind

She didn't 'Win'!! This kind of blindered thinking is the delusional mindset that lost the Dim's the support of the 75% of Americans of voting age who DID NOT vote for Hillary or Trump. Abolish the archaic & elitist electoral college? Great! Do it!! But don't mollify yourselves into thinking Clinton's loss was an electoral aberration. She was resoundingly rejected by 3 of 4 Americans and with good reason. Continued failure to address the neoliberal/NeoCon disease that permeates the Dim Party condemns it to ongoing irrelevance and the promotion of wrong-wing, 'Alt-wrong' fascism.

Rael Nidess, M.D. 167 days ago

you have to mention that it's

you have to mention that it's impossible to get rid of it by constitutional amendment. Need for you to read about National Popular Vote. See www.fairvote.org

Roy Ulrich 167 days ago

How can we get rid of electro

How can we get rid of electro vote ? It was written 200 yo by the racist white men ! Now it is not applied to the melting pot America ! I felt the country betrayed my vote ! It hurt so much! America is not civilized like France or Germany or England ! We need to find out the ways to change ! Talk to our representatives in our state? Please give us the lead? We don't want this event re occur for 2020!

Kasprow 167 days ago

We need to lean on the

We need to lean on the delegates to vote for Hillary instead of Trump in those states where the popular vote went toward Hillary. I think they are meeting in December to vote. Then after that we need to abolish the Electoral College. We are no longer a nation of slave states!

Shannon Nelson-Deighan 167 days ago

Excellent article! This type

Excellent article! This type of article needs main stream media exposure. There are a lot of young people protesting the election results, but besides protesting the surprising outcome, they should be protesting the Electoral College system and demand the popular vote. Just like our local and state officials are elected, by popular vote, it's about time we really make our individual vote matter when choosing our national leader. I wish major broadcasters could pick up on this article and inform the American public on this old dysfunctional method of voting, because a lot of people who vote don't understand the Presidential voting process and many think it's by popular vote until they are told otherwise. So how can such a movement to abolish the Electoral College get started and who would do it?

JD 167 days ago

"It also installed a “three

"It also installed a “three-fifth bonus” that gave plantation owners a 60 percent headcount for their slaves. The ruse was counted into Congressional districting, giving the south a distinct advantage over the northern free states.".....is that TRUE???
In my opinion, if it that is TRUE, wouldnt the electoral college be definetely classified as corrupt, unfair, probably racist and most likely unconstitutional in today's world and be immediately reversed to the popular vote in both primaries and presidential election!

Arcangelo 168 days ago

This election is the perfect

This election is the perfect example of why we need the electoral college. I understand those who are upset that Clinton lost the election because of the electoral college while it appears she won the popular vote. It's my understanding that's not guaranteed yet as there are still locations waiting to report. Nevertheless, I urge you to take a look at the county map of the 2016 election. It is almost completely red with the exception of major metropolitan areas. I looked into the vote differential between Los Angeles County, Cook County (Chicago) and the counties surrounding New York. Hillary Clinton outperformed Trump by somewhere between 3-4 million votes in these few counties. The whole reason the electoral college was put in place was for this very reason. These urban areas are so heavily Democrat that their vote totals simply by population skew the numbers so much towards the Democrats as to not give a reasonable assessment on how the country feels as a whole. You may think that is unfair but as a conservative I look at the sea of red on the county electoral map and believe it's amazing if not a little unfair that Trump didn't win by a much larger margin than he did. The political views of a few major metropolitan areas should not have the impact of tipping the National scales towards the democrats as it is clear that the majority of urban and rural areas in the United States do not share their political views. If you don't believe me look at the individual county electoral maps for Illinois and New York. They are almost entirely red accept Chicago and New York. California is the only one that appears to be a split of blue and red. The electoral college allows what appears to be a 50/50 split of the popular vote to be more fairly counted throughout the country as a whole and not only those locations that are heavily populated. I understand why Democrats hate it because they're much more likely to win the popular vote and lose and electoral college situation due to these conditions.

Nick 168 days ago

I agree with this article

I agree with this article whole-heartedly. However, I sincerely hope--that those of you complaining here about the Electoral college, are not any of the same people who called us Sander's supporters "whiners" and "sore losers" when we complained about the Superdelegates--an equally undemocratic process.

Gillian G 168 days ago

Actually, we vote directly

Actually, we vote directly for our state government, and for our Federal representatives (from the states to the Federal government). There was never any intention by the founders of this nation to create a democracy. We do not need a democracy. We do not WANT a democracy. We are now, and always have been, a constitutional republic comprised of a federation of independent states. National government was never intended to be so large and powerful. To remove the impact of the states on the power of the national government (which abolishing the Electoral College would surely do) would render the states virtually powerless. We would have what has long been known as "the tyranny of the majority". That sounds great when the "right" people happen to be in the majority today. Times change, though. Demographics change. Members of the majority can find themselves in the minority very quickly, often with little warning. Without the checks on majority tyranny (which can come from the left, the right, and even the center), the minority remain powerless (and often abused) for as long as the majority remains.

In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison made his feelings on pure democracy crystal clear:

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with security and the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in the deaths..."

Checks on absolute power are good for all of us. I live in a state that, for all practical purposes, plays no real role in modern national politics. That does not, however, mean that it should forever be relegated to one of the "flyover" states that those in power traverse while moving from the power centers on the East coast to the power centers on the West coast. That would essentially render powerless and voiceless the bulk of the population living between the coasts. I do not think that is what any of us really wants.

MinTN 168 days ago

Articles like this are why we

Articles like this are why we need to bring back civics classes. The electoral college serves many useful functions. The need for 270 electoral votes requires candidates to address the unique needs of sparsely populated areas, enhances the importance of small states relative to large ones and of all states relative to the federal government. If we went to a direct popular vote candidates would concentrate their attention on the densely populated coastal areas. This would effectively disenfranchise huge swaths of the country, undermine the power of states, greatly weaken federalism, and vastly increase the already unhealthy concentration of power in the DC-Manhattan axis. Taken together, this would likely lead to even an even more polarized electorate and possibly even serious civil unrest. Fortunately, this opportunistic power grab by coastal "progressives" will never happen because small states in the interior will rightly block passage of the necessary constitutional amendment.

Mark 168 days ago

We are not a democracy. We

We are not a democracy. We are a republic, as in the Pledge of Allegiance.We would have to change that first. If we were a Democracy, we wouldn't need a Congress.

John Benford 168 days ago

This article is historically

This article is historically wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. So I'll pick a place at random: the article completely ignores the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804. It completely ignores the 20th Amendment, 1933, which also modified the original EC system. ~~~~~ But most of all, what the authors don't seem to get is that there should be no popular vote for president or vice-president. Apparently these authors don't understand how the EC system was supposed to work before it was hijacked by partisan politics. People were supposed to vote for local citizens who could be trusted to go to Washington and chose the country's leaders. The members of the EC would vote in blocks according to state, but the idea was to take the decision out of the hands of the people and give it to a committee that is elected by the people. ~~~~~ If you voted on Tuesday, ask yourself this: What is the name of the elector I just voted for? If you can't answer that question, the system is not working as intended, and that's because under the EC system you vote for electors not candidates. There shouldn't even be such a thing as the "popular vote," so who cares who won it???? ~~~~~ And the reason I say it is that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that the people are too stupid to choose their own leaders. (And, boy, has history ever proven that point.) Just like most democracies today and every major corporation, the F-Fathers saw that choosing a leader should be done by committee. In England, it's Parliament; at MS it's the Board of Directors. ~~~~~ Instead of eliminating the EC, it should be reformed so that it operates as intended. There should be no more grotesque primaries, no presidential candidates, and no so-called "popular vote."

Denis O'Brien 168 days ago

I just can't believe what

I just can't believe what Bull***t this is. HOW can only a few people decide who the winner will be, when millions of people already decided who the winner s going to be? This system is unfair and it's should be considered illegal.

Angie Marshick 168 days ago

This is an outrage. I have

This is an outrage. I have been talking about this outdated Electoral College vote ever since Bush supposedly won over Gore.
We as Americans need to get rid of this horrible way of electing our president.
And we need to act now.

Jenn 168 days ago

You're dismissing the fact

You're dismissing the fact that we are a republic and that the president is chosen by the people through the states. It isn't just ostensible - the Electoral College protects smaller states from larger ones, by design.

Also, as authors of a book on Jim Crow you should know that it was Democrats and not Republicans who enforced Jim Crow. The 3/5 vote clause was a compromise; the slave states wanted full counting for slaves, and non-slave states didn't want captives to inflate slave state representation.

a fair man 168 days ago

People are protesting Donald

People are protesting Donald Trump as president. Lets protest to abolish the electoral college. The popular vote has been robbed. It is time the people of America are heard. All people.

Debbie McDonald 168 days ago

The highest score wins in any

The highest score wins in any venue and it should be for this contest also. This should be the last time the republicans have stolen an election. ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Valerie Moe 168 days ago

What can the average person

What can the average person do to help?

Amy 168 days ago

And, we have to fix our

corrupt election management systems. We need paper ballots across the nation - paper ballots hand counted at the precinct with results published by precinct. Maybe, in the best of all worlds, ranked choice voting, non-partisan election management, debate management, and restricting...you get the idea - a real democratic system.

Wayne Stinson 168 days ago

How can we hold on to racist

How can we hold on to racist methodology born during period of slavery condemned for decades by reasonable men and women?

Janet Azarovitz 168 days ago

Clinton won!

Clinton won!

Alaina Johnson 168 days ago

Put this 18th Century relic

Put this 18th Century relic in the dustbin of history.

Steven Jay Gaynor 168 days ago

Yes, Trump is a horror, but

Yes, Trump is a horror, but do you actually think that Hillary War Fiend is a progressive? Did you look at her transition team?

Chris 168 days ago

We vote directly for all of

We vote directly for all of our other elected officials, president should be the same!!

Ashley Cowen 168 days ago

What difference does it make?

What difference does it make? Vote George Bush; get Nicky Rockefeller, Vote Al Gore; get Nicky Rockefeller. Killary Clinton is a Rothschild/ Rockefeller bitch. At least Trump is not the controlled opposition this time, hopefully.

Liam Mullins 168 days ago

first Gore, now Clinton booth

first Gore, now Clinton both of whom should have been our president. I shudder at the thought of Trump representing the USA and what his administration will do to the environment.

lynda braun 168 days ago

Where is the petition to

Where is the petition to abolish the electoral college?????

Martha G.Caparell 168 days ago

Do you HONESTLY think a

Do you HONESTLY think a popular vote would favor Hillary? Did you consider how many Trump voters DIDN'T vote thanks to electoral college's predictability?

National popular vote would not only be a waste of resources in campaigning, it would also encourage massive fraud and mass advertising of misinformation.

Cory 168 days ago

Your logic is faulty. We

Your logic is faulty. We already have mass advertising of misinformation, and the current system does nothing to prevent or discourage voter fraud--it just spreads the problem out to 50 constituencies rather than one. If you could explain why the will of the majority is less important than the vagaries of 50 separate elections, that might also help your case, but it would be a plea for an anti-democratic system that makes some votes more equal than others. One person, one vote is the only really fair and democratic way to choose leaders. The electoral college systems can prove antithetical to democracy in a way that one person, one vote does not.

James Levy 168 days ago

I want to abolish the

I want to abolish the electoral college - retroactively. I want my vote to count! I wish there was a way we could do this and elect Hillary Clinton instead of this mad man who has the potential to destroy not just America, but the world.

Sharlene White 168 days ago

I agree, but will we ever

I agree, but will we ever have politicians who are altruistic enough to do it or will they continue to keep the flawed, anachronistic system in place that put them or their cronies in office?

Western Sage 168 days ago

Hillary for president!

Hillary for president!

Irina 168 days ago

The electoral college is

The electoral college is doing exactly what its intended to do. Keeping bigger states from bullying little states. Just because there happens to be so a giant population burst in giant cities like New York, LA, Detriot, ext doesn't mean they should decide the President for at 52 states. Each state should of have its own say. Just because you think one way doesn't give them the right to think another.

Nick 168 days ago

first of all the biggest

first of all the biggest state Texas and Cali are bullying everybody so irrelevant but most important did u read this and how this was a electoral college was a racial process? .....Per article "It also installed a “three-fifth bonus” that gave plantation owners a 60 percent headcount for their slaves. The ruse was counted into Congressional districting, giving the south a distinct advantage over the northern free states. That’s why every President from Jefferson to Lincoln either owned slaves or had a vice president who did.

Arcangelo 168 days ago

You are correct in your

You are correct in your assessment of the original purpose of the electoral college. But do not forget the electoral college is an all or nothing system. If the delegate allotment were proportional to the votes cast then it might be fairer. But as it stands the electoral college silences the voices of millions of registered voters. If, for example, you live in Georgia and are a democrat, independent or green party voter who does not support the republican candidate, your voice and your vote for president will NEVER be heard and NEVER be counted. Perhaps the electoral college was necessary at the time the country was founded but that is no longer the case. It is an outdated paradigm of governance and destructive to the democratic process.

Janie 168 days ago

It is clearly time for a

It is clearly time for a change. We must deeply grieve that we have come to this place. Needing so much pain to learn and then step up to the calling!!! I know little of this process but I am willing to learn and wish to participate in the change. Feeling it all,

Mia Babineau 168 days ago

I think it's imperative that

I think it's imperative that we have a petition to abolish the Electoral College. We probably need some other ways to achieve this too.

Zoe Harris 168 days ago

Of course, had that been in

Of course, had that been in place for the primaries, the Democrat nominee for President would probably have been Bernie and he would probably have won any vote over Donald.

Mike Boddington 168 days ago

We can't let this man become

We can't let this man become president.

Susan Cox 168 days ago

So how do we go about getting

So how do we go about getting rid of electoral college? I will put everything I can into changing this. First Al Gore now Hillary. Tell me what I can do.

Fran 168 days ago

So please tell me how this is

So please tell me how this is done it's a friggin act of Congress. Yes, it needs to go away and has needed to go away for years and why has nobody done anything about it. This comes up after each election but nobody does anything about it...so let's do something about it instead of the BS we continue to do...time for a clean up of all the dumb and outdated shit that our foreparents left us.

Terrah 168 days ago

No, this has nothing to do

No, this has nothing to do with an act of Congress. The Electoral College was set up in the Constitution. Abolishing it would require amending the Constitution. The most which could be done simply by an act of congress is to require electors to vote for the candidate who wins the national popular election. I am not sure if that would be upheld by the Supreme Court.

John H 166 days ago

She did win the popular vote,

She did win the popular vote, but if it's to be ridden of, Hillary will be the last one. He did win by the current standards, and I think we have to get rid of it and am outraged at the trump victory, but she can't be president. She'll be the last.

Leah Hersh 169 days ago

Most Americans don't

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 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 is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency 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.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) 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.

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 will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

NationalPopularVote

otto 169 days ago

We cannot call ourselves a

We cannot call ourselves a democracy if yet again the winner of he popular vote does not become President. ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

Stephen Spitz 169 days ago

This is a very good article,

This is a very good article, but it is wrong about 1800. See Michael J. Dubin's United States Presidential Elections 1788-1860, page 9. Thomas Jefferson electors got 41,516 popular votes, but John Adams electors only got 25,7458 popular votes.

Richard Winger 169 days ago

There is a very feasible way

There is a very feasible way to achieve this without a constitutional amendment. Many state legislatures have already signed onto this. Read about it here: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

Danny Sleator 169 days ago

It's time to ABOLISH

It's time to ABOLISH ELECTORAL VOTE! YOUR ACTUAL VOTE Didn't COUNT!!!
***Popular Vote (Individual Vote)***
ClLINTON=59,626.695 votes
TRUMP=59,428.493 votes
Clearly CLINTON WON individual Vote!
By electing our President solely based on who the majority of our population selects, without the inclusion of an Electoral College, the vote of every American citizen would hold equal weight and significance. Under this new system, when we vote for President we would actually be voting for President, not instructing ‘electors’ on how we want them to vote. The will of the American people would always be executed and honored, and could never be thwarted.
With the Electoral College, the voting power of the people has been diluted and unequally distributed across our nation. It’s time that we begin to amend our broken process.

Jennifer 169 days ago

Agreed!!!

Agreed!!!

Sam 169 days ago

Support-The-Progressive_Dev_HouseAd
Built with Metro Publisher™