Don’t let the Electoral College keep you from voting!

[Skipper]

Preston Mitchell | @presto_mitch

The year 2016 will be remembered for the nerve-raking face-off between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Despite many Americans pulling for Bernie Sanders, it’s time to realize two megalomaniacs are our only options for commander-in-chief.

Regardless of which side of the coin you fall, it is now more important than ever to vote this November. In spite of whatever vitriol you harbor toward the Electoral College, or how different your state may think than you, your vote still counts.

For those who are unfamiliar, the Electoral College is an institution of 538 electors. There are 435 representatives, 100 senators, and 3 Washington D.C. electors chosen to select the new president and vice president.

To win, the candidate must reach a minimum of 270 votes. The purpose for this system is to prevent the new head of state from being solely determined by the everyman without political consent.

In essence, it’s affording each candidate a final fair trial before decisions are made.

A common criticism of the Electoral College is that even if citizens vote, the system is seen as the end-all-be-all that completely disregards popular state opinion.

Texas is a sizable site for this grievance because people who were once confident in a Sanders renaissance are now backing out from balloting because of the state’s well-known flirtations with Republicanism.

Even though the college acts as the politicians’ last say in leadership, it was never intended to discourage “we,” the American people, from actually voting.

Our votes certainly count because the Electoral College always goes through us to cast their own votes.

Case in point: we tackle the state votes so the politicians know how to read the national votes. Every state receives more than one elector, both in the House and the Senate. The House of Representatives is always divided by population, causing larger states to have more representatives than smaller states. Nonetheless, each state is granted two senators no matter what, meaning every state stands an equal chance whether it’s big or small.

In fact, there have only been four times in U.S. history when a person won their presidency without popular vote. Most recently, George W. Bush was elected this way 16 years ago. Before that, Benjamin Harrison won the national vote in 1888.

Stop worrying about the Electoral College, get off your couch and go vote soon.

The only way to make the change you want to happen is to participate in the nationwide conversation. Because we’ve had four solid years to make up our minds, it is imperative that we all make a choice in November.

Please vote.

View Full Article

[otto]

In Gallup polls since 1944, 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 (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).                                                   

Every voter, everywhere, is not politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote does not matter in the state counts and national count.

 

Minority party voters in presidential elections in each state don't matter to their candidate.

 

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates. 

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the then 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

 

In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.  But nearly 20 million eligible citizens in those states—Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin—are missing from the voter rolls.

 

Overall, these “missing voters” amount to half, and in some cases more than half, of the total votes cast for president in these states.

Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire (with 86 electoral votes among them) is not a foregone conclusion.

 

Since March, ASSUMING a Clinton vs. Trump campaign, some analysts believe there will be no swing states.  States with 347 electoral votes are leaning, likely, or safe Democratic, and 191 Republican.

So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election. 

 

The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A difference of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.                                                                                                                                               

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

 

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 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.

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently.  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.

NationalPopularVote

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 15 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

 

If a candidate won the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent that candidate from being elected President of the United States

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

                        

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.                  

                                                                                                                                     

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a 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 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 270 necessary to go into effect.

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com                                          

[FirefightnRick]

Thank goodness for the electoral college.  One man one vote would be a disaster...right Check Facts?

 

Rick

[forevereagle]

 

[CMJ]

The Electoral College does localize issues in a close election.  Take 2000...Gore won the popular vote by less than half a percent nationwide.  That would almost certainly trigger a recount.  Just imagine Florida writ large ---  would still have been in courts for months...maybe years.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Only once in the past 125+ years has the person with the most popular vote not won ....... W.Bush over Gore....

Problem I with popular vote:   Not all states have the same voting standards or even registration system .... some even allow people to register and vote the same day which which is an invitation to corruption. Texas requires people to register 30 days prior to an election and even then they do not declare which party which some states require at registration time....  Popular vote makes no sense at all when states have different voting "standards" and regulations. Pretty tough to have voter corruption in Texas with our system which also purges lists every two year of people moved etc. (some don't)... Both parties are supposed to be represented at all polling sites also ... the only real weakness in Texas --- "mail ins" ... no picture ID or any ID and the voter is never seen.

Problem II ... the 2000 election was total chaos in Florida mostly due to different style ballots and some not very good ones either...... Can you imagine the mess the USA would have if the national popular vote was only a few 1000 or 100 apart...... we would have 50 "Florida messes" of trying to find vote and in almost every town...  I understand not liking the current system of an electoral college but it is better than the alternative....because of different voting standards of states, voting ballot problems, and the possibility of 50 "chaos states"  in a close election.  Only 1  of the last 30+ Presidential elections did the person with the most votes not win..... W.Bush over Gore. ... and it was very close on popular vote [ less than 1% difference I think ]

.  

Edited June 8, 2016 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

On 6/2/2016 at 2:35 PM, Skipper said:

Preston Mitchell | @presto_mitch

The year 2016 will be remembered for the nerve-raking face-off between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Despite many Americans pulling for Bernie Sanders, it’s time to realize two megalomaniacs are our only options for commander-in-chief.

Regardless of which side of the coin you fall, it is now more important than ever to vote this November. In spite of whatever vitriol you harbor toward the Electoral College, or how different your state may think than you, your vote still counts.

For those who are unfamiliar, the Electoral College is an institution of 538 electors. There are 435 representatives, 100 senators, and 3 Washington D.C. electors chosen to select the new president and vice president.

To win, the candidate must reach a minimum of 270 votes. The purpose for this system is to prevent the new head of state from being solely determined by the everyman without political consent.

In essence, it’s affording each candidate a final fair trial before decisions are made.

A common criticism of the Electoral College is that even if citizens vote, the system is seen as the end-all-be-all that completely disregards popular state opinion.

Texas is a sizable site for this grievance because people who were once confident in a Sanders renaissance are now backing out from balloting because of the state’s well-known flirtations with Republicanism.

Even though the college acts as the politicians’ last say in leadership, it was never intended to discourage “we,” the American people, from actually voting.

Our votes certainly count because the Electoral College always goes through us to cast their own votes.

Case in point: we tackle the state votes so the politicians know how to read the national votes. Every state receives more than one elector, both in the House and the Senate. The House of Representatives is always divided by population, causing larger states to have more representatives than smaller states. Nonetheless, each state is granted two senators no matter what, meaning every state stands an equal chance whether it’s big or small.

In fact, there have only been four times in U.S. history when a person won their presidency without popular vote. Most recently, George W. Bush was elected this way 16 years ago. Before that, Benjamin Harrison won the national vote in 1888.

Stop worrying about the Electoral College, get off your couch and go vote soon.

The only way to make the change you want to happen is to participate in the nationwide conversation. Because we’ve had four solid years to make up our minds, it is imperative that we all make a choice in November.

Please vote.

View Full Article

Can I let apathy keep me from voting, then?

On 6/7/2016 at 7:52 PM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

Only once in the past 125+ years has the person with the most popular vote not won ....... W.Bush over Gore....

Problem I with popular vote:   Not all states have the same voting standards or even registration system .... some even allow people to register and vote the same day which which is an invitation to corruption. Texas requires people to register 30 days prior to an election and even then they do not declare which party which some states require at registration time....  Popular vote makes no sense at all when states have different voting "standards" and regulations. Pretty tough to have voter corruption in Texas with our system which also purges lists every two year of people moved etc. (some don't)... Both parties are supposed to be represented at all polling sites also ... the only real weakness in Texas --- "mail ins" ... no picture ID or any ID and the voter is never seen.

Problem II ... the 2000 election was total chaos in Florida mostly due to different style ballots and some not very good ones either...... Can you imagine the mess the USA would have if the national popular vote was only a few 1000 or 100 apart...... we would have 50 "Florida messes" of trying to find vote and in almost every town...  I understand not liking the current system of an electoral college but it is better than the alternative....because of different voting standards of states, voting ballot problems, and the possibility of 50 "chaos states"  in a close election.  Only 1  of the last 30+ Presidential elections did the person with the most votes not win..... W.Bush over Gore. ... and it was very close on popular vote [ less than 1% difference I think ]

.  

In my wife's home country, Mexico, they use these:

 

So, in Mexico, if you don't have one of those, you don't get to vote. 

Gee...I wonder how well the Mexicans/Hispanics here would react if we used the same standards for voting as Mexico does?  Think there'd be any lawsuits for asking people to actually prove they are who they say they are AND that they are citizens of the country?

Nah...I'm sure they'd be just fine with it here.  How soon can we start!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

As I said.... in past 125 years (modern times) ... only one time did the person win that did not have the most votes. ... What I said is correct.  before that three times  it did happen and with a lot fewer states and less population.. Also a lot easier to have voter fraud then because of poor communication and other issues. ... 

.

We do have to use a voter ID in Texas... most use a driver's licence or state ID or even passport (seen several) which absolutely require American citizenship... .... and Texas requires 30 advance registration... which can be used to check citizenship.... or that they were born when and where they claim.... gen-worth lists it.   Not that difficult. Some states...  nope ... they even use same day registration and don't purge voting rolls like Texas does...  .. and would be easier to someone to "cheat" i those states systems.  Without the same standards for every state... total popular vote would be a problem. 

 

I have worked as a election judge several times  don't understand what you are trying to say... everything I said was true ...and we do have as very good secure system using a  picture ID [ except mail-in votes] ... My only complaint is for people over 75 or so ... why not let them use an expired drivers licence (with a picture that is obviously them )  if they no longer drive... Some have a difficult time to go get an ID..  .especially in scattered West Texas. ..With the oil boom here (Midland/Odessa) people often were having to wait in line 3-4 hours also  (ridiculous but true ... so many people just moved here) .. Here the computers at our voting desk lists name, age (birthdate), address, and other info besides just seeing their picture on their license. . 

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

On 6/10/2016 at 6:43 PM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

As I said.... in past 125 years (modern times) ... only one time did the person win that did not have the most votes. ... What I said is correct.  before that three times  it did happen and with a lot fewer states and less population.. Also a lot easier to have voter fraud then because of poor communication and other issues. ... 

.

We do have to use a voter ID in Texas... most use a driver's licence or state ID or even passport (seen several) which absolutely require American citizenship... .... and Texas requires 30 advance registration... which can be used to check citizenship.... or that they were born when and where they claim.... gen-worth lists it.   Not that difficult. Some states...  nope ... they even use same day registration and don't purge voting rolls like Texas does...  .. and would be easier to someone to "cheat" i those states systems.  Without the same standards for every state... total popular vote would be a problem. 

 

I have worked as a election judge several times  don't understand what you are trying to say... everything I said was true ...and we do have as very good secure system using a  picture ID [ except mail-in votes] ... My only complaint is for people over 75 or so ... why not let them use an expired drivers licence (with a picture that is obviously them )  if they no longer drive... Some have a difficult time to go get an ID..  .especially in scattered West Texas. ..With the oil boom here (Midland/Odessa) people often were having to wait in line 3-4 hours also  (ridiculous but true ... so many people just moved here) .. Here the computers at our voting desk lists name, age (birthdate), address, and other info besides just seeing their picture on their license. . 

Correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't been registered to vote for almost a decade now, but I thought that you could register to vote at the same time you got your driver's license.  Is that not the case any longer?

If that is the case, then it seems to me that there should be a very low possibility of voter fraud:  you don't have a voter registration card and don't have a driver's license, you don't get to vote. 

Having not been an election judge, and having not participated in the process for many years, you tell me what you do in those situations.  Also, if you can, explain to me why Mexico can have a national voter ID card with picture, address, and thumbprint, but we can't.

Edited June 14, 2016 by MeanGreenMailbox

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

YES.... You can register to vote when you get as drivers license..... same rules apply though .. must be 30 days ahead of an election in order to vote.......BUT... at least in this county (Midland) I do not recommend it ... we have had BIG problems with them not sending the forms over in time or at all.. We are a bit unique in that our driver's license location is WAY too busy due to the recent oil boom  and still under staffed (thank the Texas Legislature partially, way under funded) ... long lines here... Despite  the drop in oil prices .. that is still true.   I even had a friend that went to Big Spring today to get a Texas drivers license again (just moved back) ... way too busy here with long lines.  Here it is far better to register at the election office which is located (here) at the same building license plates are purchased. Where-ever you are that is likely the best method by far.... the election office.... and second ..... some location or booth  that is doing voter registration and nothing else.  

 

Mexico .. don't know their rules ..... maybe they have same voting standards and regulations nation-wide so a voting card might make sense.  ... we don't.... Each state makes up a lot of the standards themselves... not entirely but voting standards are not the nation-wide in USA.... that is one of the reasons only national popular vote would  be a bad idea.  Some states people register to vote in a particular party primary but in Texas you get to chose which on election day.... with the computer system we have in this county it would be impossible to vote in both... don't know about others but very illegal and would get caught and arrested.. .. Texas has a 30 day waiting period, some have less,   and some (Pennsylvania for one I think) can  register that day and vote... Bad idea.  --no way to really check that they are qualified [ legal citizen or live where they claim ]

Edited June 16, 2016 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

On 6/15/2016 at 10:31 PM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

YES.... You can register to vote when you get as drivers license..... same rules apply though .. must be 30 days ahead of an election in order to vote.......BUT... at least in this county (Midland) I do not recommend it ... we have had BIG problems with them not sending the forms over in time or at all.. We are a bit unique in that our driver's license location is WAY too busy due to the recent oil boom  and still under staffed (thank the Texas Legislature partially, way under funded) ... long lines here... Despite  the drop in oil prices .. that is still true.   I even had a friend that went to Big Spring today to get a Texas drivers license again (just moved back) ... way too busy here with long lines.  Here it is far better to register at the election office which is located (here) at the same building license plates are purchased. Where-ever you are that is likely the best method by far.... the election office.... and second ..... some location or booth  that is doing voter registration and nothing else.  

 

Mexico .. don't know their rules ..... maybe they have same voting standards and regulations nation-wide so a voting card might make sense.  ... we don't.... Each state makes up a lot of the standards themselves... not entirely but voting standards are not the nation-wide in USA.... that is one of the reasons only national popular vote would  be a bad idea.  Some states people register to vote in a particular party primary but in Texas you get to chose which on election day.... with the computer system we have in this county it would be impossible to vote in both... don't know about others but very illegal and would get caught and arrested.. .. Texas has a 30 day waiting period, some have less,   and some (Pennsylvania for one I think) can  register that day and vote... Bad idea.  --no way to really check that they are qualified [ legal citizen or live where they claim ]

So, why is having a national voting card, like Mexico has, a bad idea?  To me, it looks like a good idea.  Chance for fraud there appears to be zero.