On June 9, Public Policy Polling released the results of a Rhode Island poll on the electoral college. The results are that 75% desire a direct popular election. See here for the details. The poll included 800 respondents. The poll was probably commissioned because Rhode Island’s legislature is currently considering whether to approve the National Popular Vote bill.
Is this part of that NPV plan of democratic leaning states committing to put a Republican in office if they win the popular vote but not the EC.
One could describe it that way. See http://www.nationalpopularvote.org for more details. Or if you are really into details, read their 600-page book.
Yes, I am familiar with the “reform”. It seems to me a much better compact is for large states to split EC by congressional district or proportional representation. Not only would this be advantageous to the duopoly but would make elections more competitive.
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, as claimed, 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, 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 the a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). This would guarantee the White House to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
As bad as the current system is, at least the Congressional majority can’t gerrymander the states. A district-based system would raise the stakes in the already ludicrous Congressional gerrymandering process.
How would the NPV compact deal with an election like 1880?
I was born in Vermont, lived and worked in the 50 my entire life. I moved to San Juan last year, and I was careful to preserve my right to vote. HOWEVER, not one of the Born in the USA citizens that I know who are living here in this US territory are allowed to vote. Our right to vote depends on where we happen to live.
I have read the ruling. I do not need to have it explained; I would like to have it changed.
I believe each and every US citizen should have the right to vote.
Puerto Rican-born citizens vote all the time you know. As soon as the move to the US, they can vote.
But my friends here who were born in New York, Texas, Maryland…they can’t vote.
Why can’t we have a little Democracy in the USA?
I do not believe we need that system of caucuses and primaries and superdelegates anymore either.
True, if Obama hadnt won Iowa, he would never be the nominee.
But….if he could win Iowa, I think he could have won anywhere.
If we had a National Primary day, say June 1st, and the candidates could campaign any where, any way they wanted,
Obama wouldnt have started in corn-fed Iowa and snow-white New Hampshire.
He would have gone to every small, medium and large college campus in America. Internet buzz.
Add book signings at Borders and B & N in every upscale suburban mall,
Hold rallies in every struggling inner city in America… and by the June 1st primary day I believe he would have been ahead by millions of voters, despite the fact that he was unknown and ‘poor’.