1. They should compare it to other alternatives, like proportionally giving out electoral votes or doing it by congressional district.

2. Richard;

   I may write a letter to editor on the North Dakota law (probably the Forum). Have you heard the formal justification behind it and maybe offer me some plausaible rebuttels.

3. The League lets anyone join, men and women alike, so maybe those of you who are interested should considering joining the League. I was a member some time ago, and I enjoyed being a member.

4. Dividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person’s vote equally important to presidential campaigns.

   If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and 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.

   The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the winner-take-all rule (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including North Carolina and California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

5. A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

   Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would perpetuate the inequality of votes among states due to each state’s bonus of two electoral votes. It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

   Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

6. Susan, your arguments are deaf to reasoning. Why would any candidate waste their time in small states that will not have a voice under NPV? To believe that NPV will encourage candidates to travel everywhere is completely ludicrous and very ignorant of the presidential process.

7. Barack Obama traveled to 57 States, plus several countries during the last presidential election.

8. If a woman could choose to be a nurse or a school teacher, while a man could choose to be a doctor or a school teacher, or a fireman; are their choices equal?

9. Okay, I gotta ask . . . 57 states?

   Is this a typo, a reference back to John Kerry’s Heinz connection, or what? :]

10. The Messiah is actually on YouTube saying that he had visited 57 states during the campaign.

    His teleprompter was evidently malfunctioning then.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.