38+ states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 240 million Americans, ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.
Policies important to the citizens of 38+ non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing. Because of statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . . 2 of the 3 most recent presidents entered office without winning the most national popular votes.
5 of our 45 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide. A recent study shows there's a 45% chance that a close presidential election ends with the winner of less popular votes becoming President. Another recent study warns that 1 out of every 3 presidential elections where the popular vote margin is within 3% will feature a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral college. There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.
Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN).
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.”
Bob Barr: “Only when the election process is given back to all of the people of all of the states will we be able to choose a President based on what is best for all 50 states and not just a select few.”
Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill
In 2017, Saul Anuzis and Michael Steele, the former chairmen of the Michigan and national Republican parties, wrote that the National Popular Vote bill was “an idea whose time has come”. On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4. Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill. In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill. In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28-18 margin. In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill
On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill. In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21-18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18-16.
In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public 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).
When asked the simple question “Do you think the person who wins the most votes nationwide should become the president?” 74% of all Americans surveyed say yes.
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. There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.
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. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
The National Popular Vote bill 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 41 state legislative chambers in 25 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 284 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6). The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes - 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.
With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes. Since 1828, one in six states have cast their Electoral College votes for a candidate who failed to win the support of 50 percent of voters in their state
Now, if no candidate gets the majority of electoral votes needed, the U.S. House of Representatives selects the President, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.
Americans, generally, do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time, with the National Popular Vote bill in effect. And, FYI, with the current system of awarding electoral votes by state winner-take-all (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes.
A presidential candidate could lose with 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.
In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.
Since 1824 there have been 17 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 and 1996), and Trump.
The Virginia Compromise, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, sufficiently and brilliantly addressed the issue of the densely populated states vs. the sparsely populated states. It created two houses in congress balancing the power of the individual states. The singular Office of the President is the only branch that represents the nation as a whole. As such the election of its occupant should be decided by a simple majority of the nation's citizens. I say abolish the Electoral College .
Trump in June 2019 - Fox News interview “It’s always tougher for the Republican because, . . . the Electoral College is very much steered to the Democrats. It’s a big advantage for the Democrats. It’s very much harder for the Republicans to win.” Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends” “I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.” “I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”
Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview “I would rather have a popular vote. “
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."
States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38+ states and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution- "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."
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.
“Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia are no longer swing states and are OFF THE TABLE.” - Wasserman, Cook Political Report, Democracy Matters Conference, March 2019
@@gbonkers666 - Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . . The Bulwark reported that the presidential election could come down to three states: Nevada, Michigan and Georgia. As of April 2, 2020, Sabato’s Crystal Ball said only 57 electoral votes in four states (Pennsylvania - 20, North Carolina - 15, Arizona -11, Wisconsin - 10) and one district vote in Nebraska are not predictable. Politico said only five states (Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona) are likely to be politically relevant in the 2020 presidential race. “Experts generally agree that the key swing states to focus on this year are Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.” - Newsweek 3/13/20
Prison populations count towards population. Lotta “red” states have high prison populations of federal inmates from out of state. Often inmates from “blue” states… This unfairly benefits states and municipalities and counties that build prisons.. Its a strategy they have that nobody calls out.
The editing of this video is so choppy and terrible, it's almost completely unintelligible. Is there another version of this video that wasn't edited by a novice? Or perhaps not edited at all?
This discussion needs to go viral… Urgently
38+ states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 240 million Americans, ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.
Policies important to the citizens of 38+ non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Because of statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .
2 of the 3 most recent presidents entered office without winning the most national popular votes.
5 of our 45 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide.
A recent study shows there's a 45% chance that a close presidential election ends with the winner of less popular votes becoming President.
Another recent study warns that 1 out of every 3 presidential elections where the popular vote margin is within 3% will feature a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral college.
There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.
Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN).
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.”
Bob Barr: “Only when the election process is given back to all of the people of all of the states will we be able to choose a President based on what is best for all 50 states and not just a select few.”
Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill
In 2017, Saul Anuzis and Michael Steele, the former chairmen of the Michigan and national Republican parties, wrote that the National Popular Vote bill was “an idea whose time has come”.
On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote
In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.
In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28-18 margin.
In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill
On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21-18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18-16.
In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public 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).
When asked the simple question “Do you think the person who wins the most votes nationwide should become the president?” 74% of all Americans surveyed say yes.
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.
There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.
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. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
The National Popular Vote bill 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 41 state legislative chambers in 25 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 284 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes - 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.
With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes.
Since 1828, one in six states have cast their Electoral College votes for a candidate who failed to win the support of 50 percent of voters in their state
Now, if no candidate gets the majority of electoral votes needed, the U.S. House of Representatives selects the President, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.
Americans, generally, do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time, with the National Popular Vote bill in effect.
And, FYI, with the current system of awarding electoral votes by state winner-take-all (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes.
A presidential candidate could lose with 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.
In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.
Since 1824 there have been 17 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 and 1996), and Trump.
The Virginia Compromise, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, sufficiently and brilliantly addressed the issue of the densely populated states vs. the sparsely populated states. It created two houses in congress balancing the power of the individual states. The singular Office of the President is the only branch that represents the nation as a whole. As such the election of its occupant should be decided by a simple majority of the nation's citizens. I say abolish the Electoral College .
Trump in June 2019 - Fox News interview
“It’s always tougher for the Republican because, . . . the Electoral College is very much steered to the Democrats. It’s a big advantage for the Democrats. It’s very much harder for the Republicans to win.”
Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”
“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”
“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”
Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview
“I would rather have a popular vote. “
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."
States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38+ states and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-
"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."
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.
“Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia are no longer swing states and are OFF THE TABLE.” - Wasserman, Cook Political Report, Democracy Matters Conference, March 2019
sure....sure...
@@gbonkers666 - Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .
The Bulwark reported that the presidential election could come down to three states: Nevada, Michigan and Georgia.
As of April 2, 2020, Sabato’s Crystal Ball said only 57 electoral votes in four states (Pennsylvania - 20, North Carolina - 15, Arizona -11, Wisconsin - 10) and one district vote in Nebraska are not predictable.
Politico said only five states (Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona) are likely to be politically relevant in the 2020 presidential race.
“Experts generally agree that the key swing states to focus on this year are Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.” - Newsweek 3/13/20
Prison populations count towards population. Lotta “red” states have high prison populations of federal inmates from out of state. Often inmates from “blue” states… This unfairly benefits states and municipalities and counties that build prisons.. Its a strategy they have that nobody calls out.
Black people did not have the vote at the time the Electoral College was voted in. What were they then worried about?
I think people are more politically aware and we do not need this electoral college!
Then a few states could run the whole country, since our country is getting more centralized this could be disastrous.
Black people did not have the vote when the Electoral College happened. What were they then worried about?
Wow.. The 30:10 mark… less concern about people rioting? They had a whole insurrection attempt that election year. Wow. Jan 6th…
The editing of this video is so choppy and terrible, it's almost completely unintelligible. Is there another version of this video that wasn't edited by a novice? Or perhaps not edited at all?
15:50