• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Popular Vote or the Electoral College?

    While New Hampshire maneuvers to maintain first-in-the-nation primary status, a new Gallup poll reveals many Americans don’t care who New Hampshirites want to be President. In fact, they don’t care who any state wants to be President. A majority of those polled—62 percent—would prefer to amend the Constitution so that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide becomes President, while 35 percent of Americans would keep the Electoral College.

    With the spirit of the times supposedly against the Electoral College, why preserve the Founders’ constitutional design?

    The Electoral College preserves federalism, encourages candidates to build national coalitions, and grants definitive electoral outcomes. It requires a presidential candidate to win simultaneous elections across 50 states and the District of Columbia. Here is how the Electoral College works: Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to the number of Representatives for the state plus the number of Senators. (Per the 23rd Amendment, the District of Columbia has the same number of electoral votes as that of the least populous state—currently three votes). Each state except Maine and Nebraska has a “winner-take-all” system, whereby the presidential candidate who wins the state receives all the state’s electoral votes. A President is elected when one candidate obtains a majority of these states’ electoral votes (currently 270 electoral votes).

    As Tara Ross explains in “The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy,” the selection system ensures that Presidents build nationwide coalitions and demonstrate that they will be good representatives for a diverse nation composed of both small and large sovereign states. Candidates who focus too narrowly on a handful of states, regions, or metropolitan population centers will not be successful in the Electoral College.

    The Electoral College magnifies the margin of victory for presidential candidates and, therefore, confers a sense of legitimacy to the new President. In 1992, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote (only 43 percent) but he received 70 percent of the electoral votes. Most elections have not been close in the Electoral College, even when the popular vote is close. For instance, in 1960, John F. Kennedy won only 49.7 percent of the popular vote, compared to Nixon’s 49.5 percent. However, Kennedy won 56.4 percent of the electoral vote, compared to Nixon’s 40.8 percent. The magnification of the electoral vote can work to solidify the country behind the new President by bestowing an aura of legitimacy.

    The Electoral College suits our federal republic, rewards candidates who build national coalitions, and confers a mandate to govern. The Electoral College ensures that the President represents Americans of every state, from the Lone Star State to Hawkeye State, the Empire State, and the Old Dominion. What more could Americans ask for?

    Posted in Featured, First Principles [slideshow_deploy]

    76 Responses to Popular Vote or the Electoral College?

    1. steve h says:

      It's time to get rid of this outdated electoral college. Despite yoru arguments abotu building national coalitions, times have changed and we are in a new era of internet and cable news networks. I could see the need of eelctoral college 100 years ago when info wasn't readily available – but now it makes no sense.

      It seems to me the only ones who would want the electoral college are those who think they can game the system and use big number states to build up the electoral votes.

      It's time to get rid of it and have a popular vote for president. Whoever gets the most votes, regardless of party, should be the president.

      The country is already divided – you know Texas will go red and New York will go blue – it's nonsense these days. Let's have a real vote – a popular vote.

      • Guest says:

        I could agree to a popular vote electing the President, but only if we change who is eligible to vote. If you don't pay income taxes, you aren't eligible to vote. If you aren't paying for something, you shouldn't have a voice in saying who's running it. I don't care if your tax bill is $1 or $1 million, only those who pay for the government should have a vote.

        • Ron says:

          There are people in this country who have put their lives on the line in combat that may not pay income tax because after standard deductions they don't make enough to pay and you say these heroes should not be allowed to vote. WOW!

      • Robb Nunya says:

        Abolishing the EC would disenfranchise every small state out there. Instead, we need to get back to our Constitutional roots and stop the general election. State legislatures should appoint the electoral college. This is a republic. Democracy is nothing more than 2 wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner.

        • mvymvy says:

          Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

          National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

          With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. No one would be disenfranchised.

          The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.

          With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

          Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.

          In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers — including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

      • Harry says:

        The electoral college is pretty much the last vestige of federalism in the constitution. Once the states sent senators to represent them, the states voted for president, and the states held most of the rights over the federal government. Now the seventeenth amendment took the states representation away from them, the tenth amendment is being ignored. If the electoral college is removed, then why should we have states? in the days of the internet and cable news networks, lets have a single United States government. All decisions will be handed down from Washington.

        • mvymvy says:

          More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters.

          Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

          States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

          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).

      • Ron says:

        I emphatically disagree. The electoral votes should be by congressional district. You say the country is already divided and that is true. But doing away with the electoral vote would divide it more. I don't want New York and California deciding for the rest of the country.

        • The_AC says:

          If we did it by congressional district, this would give more incentive for legislators to game the system through gerrymandering the districts.

        • mvymvy says:

          Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

          If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less 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 provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws(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. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 2/3rds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

          Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

          Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

          Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

          A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

          The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.

        • mvymvy says:

          With the current system, it could only take winning the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

      • Tom Curtin says:

        If we elected using majority vote the 15 largest cities would determine the outcome of the presidential elections. Please take a look at our 15 largest cities and see how they are run and it will give you an idea what our country would be like in a decade.

        • Daniel says:

          That's not entirely accurate. With our current Electoral College, a state with a simple 51% majority would take all 100% of the electoral votes granted to it and give it to one candidate. With a simple majority, there is no such system for a city to do that, as there are no electoral votes. In the case of a city, if 51% of a city's vote goes toward a certain candidate, only 51% of a city's vote would go toward that candidate.

      • Chris Walker says:

        I just finished reading Dr. Everett Murdock's new book about the Electoral College. It's titled, "Obama will Win, but Romney Will Be President." He says the problem is the small states have an advantage in the Electoral College and would not vote for a Constitutional amendment that would take away that advantage. But he says there is another way. Just apportion electoral votes by congressional district. I believe that is the way Maine and Nebraska do it now.

    2. @IAMPCBob says:

      I think it's the 'winner-takes-all' aspect that most Americans object to. With the rampant gerrymandering so common in most states, only the incumbent party has full control of the delegates. A minority party has no chance of winning there. The electoral votes should be divided up according to the percentage of registered voters in each state, based on the popular elections. Allowing only 270 people to vote for the entire country is taking away our franchise. It begs the question of, "Why are we even voting" since our votes are ignored?

      • Guest says:

        There are 538 electoral votes — they are divided pretty much as you would like. We elect the electors so each area of the country is represented. In Oregon we always have one of our 7 votes that votes Republican — that represents our state population.

        • Robb Nunya says:

          I actually prefer your split system vs an all-or-nothing one. I wish more states would employ it. But I still don't care for the general election. Let's get back to the Constitution, States, and get rid of the general election. Oh, and let's repeal the 17th Amendment while we're at it.

      • mvymvy says:

        Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

        If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own,, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

        The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

        If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

        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.

        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.

        A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

    3. Ben says:

      We could ask for a system that didn't result in (to take the most extreme example) a vote in Wyoming being worth 4 times a Californian's vote. (Ironically, Wyoming's motto is "Equal Rights".) Your points above are good points, but I don't think they override the principle of equal rights for all citizens.

      • pk3 says:

        Yes and since we have seen the politicians that California chooses and the financial wreck that state is in it is not a bad thing that Wyoming's vote is worth more. Also I don't see how you are equating equal rights to this.

    4. Visitor says:

      Maine and Nebraska**

    5. We are not a democracy but a representative republic. Even though lately our representatives don't seem to be listening to those they represent.

      If we go to popular vote there is more chance for voter fraud, given that we don't use ID. I'd rather stick to what the founders devised.

      We need to go to founding principles for most things to get out of the mess we're in

      • mvymvy says:

        Under the National Popular Vote bill, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

        National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

        National Popular Vote preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

        The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.

        With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

        • Harry says:

          This still leaves the problem of taking away even more of the representation in Washington from the STATES. If anything, strong consideration should be given to returning the appointment of the electoral college back to where the founding fathers placed it, in the hands of the several state legislatures. Granted, currently all states have chosen to appoint their electors according to the wishes of their voting citizens, but I would have no opposition to any or all of the legislatures doing away with the "voting for president" by the populace and having a legislative vote on the appointment.

      • jweb says:

        Govern by the consent of the people, We're a Constitutional Democracy. The term republic is extremely broad. Chian is a republic. To say we are a republic is like saying I live in America. Well, which state? No state, I just live in America. "Republic" covers a vast policitcal spectrum. Again, govern by the consent of the people….bottom line.

        • Ron says:

          Wrong, we were established as a constitutional republic. We no longer are, we have evolved to a democracy and more recently oligarchy and fascism..

        • Harry says:

          Jweb. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Constitutional Democracy. The founders abhorred the concept of democracy, recognizing it for what it is, mob rule. As for the PRC, I cannot speak for how their form of government is a republic, besides in name only. (I don't have that information)

          • mvymvy says:

            The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.

            The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

    6. Guest says:

      How in the world is Wyoming's vote worth 4 times Californias?
      California has 55 electoral votes – Wyoming has 3 electoral votes.
      Perhaps, you don't understand how it works.

      • Carrie says:

        Dude, you're the one who doesn't understand how the system works. You need to check out this guy's post: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/against-the-elec….

        Consider the most extreme example: California versus Wyoming.

        California had, at the 2000 census, 33,871,648 residents. It had 55 electoral votes. That created a ratio of residents to electoral votes of 615,848.1:1 .

        In the same census, Wyoming had 493,783 residents and 3 EVs. That’s a ratio of 164,594.3:1.

        To pick a moderate sized state (and my state of residence), Alabama, we have the following numbers: 4,447,382, 9 and 494,153.6:1.

        To summarize, the ratio of residents to EVs for these states are:

        Alabama, 494,153.6:1

        California, 615,848.1:1

        Wyoming: 164,594.3:1

        That means, btw, that a voter in Wyoming has a vote worth ~3.7 times that of a voter in California.

    7. Virginia says:

      The electoral college component of the electoral system provides a built-in remedy for unforeseen problems occurring before the inauguration or a new president. Suppose terrorists assassinated the electee or suppose sudden health problems occurred before the transition of power. Having an in-place, legal system provides a calm orderly process to continue – no chaos or no military take-over.

      • mvymvy says:

        The National Popular Vote bill says:

        "The chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the “national popular vote winner.”

        It covers your "unforeseen problems" by defining the “presidential slate” as a slate of two persons, the first of whom has been nominated as a candidate for President of the United States and the second of whom has been nominated as a candidate for Vice President of the United States, or any legal successors to such persons, regardless of whether both names appear on the ballot presented to the voter in a particular state;

    8. sam says:

      The electoral college is so important because if we had only a popular vote, candidates would only try and win California, Texas, New York, and the other big states. If you want a truly democratic election where ALL the states have a say (even the small ones) keep the electoral college.

      • mvymvy says:

        The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to over 2/3rds of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

        Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

        More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

      • mvymvy says:

        Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.

        Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.

      • steve h says:

        I think you have it backwards. That is what happens now – they look to wint he big states because of their value in the college. A popular vote would mean every single person in America's vote would be equal. The college needs to go away….and fortunately, the large majority of Americans agree. It will be gone soon enough.

      • whacky the blacky says:

        you are wrong period

    9. Sam Sheetz says:

      If we want ALL states (no matter how small) to have say in the election, we need to keep the electoral college. Otherwise candidates will only focus on where the biggest groups are i.e., California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida, etc. Last I checked, people live in the other 45 states as well…..

      • mvymvy says:

        The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to over 2/3rds of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

        Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

        More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

      • Garnerjh says:

        lets just say i have a state that just joined the union with very smalll population. my state is the reason it ended in the way it did.It should be based on population not the name on the land!

    10. jay says:

      Change Alaska to Nebraska and you've got yourself a correct article.

    11. Steven says:

      If you go by the popular vote then candidates will only appear in the 10 largest states and forget the other 40. If you can get 60% of Cal, Texas, or New York you don't need any votes from Montana wyoming, Nebraska etc. therefore over half of the nation really had no voice at all. Good in theory but terrible idea.

      • mvymvy says:

        With the current system, it could only take winning the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

        But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

    12. Chrome says:

      Ultimately, this point depends upon whether you agree with the author or not on the issue of Federalism.

      If we are a FEDERATION of sovereign States, then the electoral college makes sense.
      If we aren't a Federation then it doesn't.
      But then neither does the structure of the Senate.
      The Senate is designed as a Federation break on Nationalistic urges.

      Ultimately … the truth is we ARE a Federation, despite what those who dislike the concept think.
      This is not because of the 10th amendment.
      It is because of Article V of the Constitution — the Amendment process.

      There are three clauses to this Amendment.
      The first clause is for amendments proposed by Congress — the Federal Government.
      After a certain number of steps, these proposals are sent back to the States for ratification. The Amendment only takes place with the CONSENT of 75+% of the States.
      This is called the Consent clause because the Federal government cannot change the basic agreement between itself and the States, without the State's consent.

      The second clause is the Constitutional convention route.
      This process requires 2/3 of the State legislatures to request a constitutional convention.
      This has never happened. The closest we ever got was in the 1980s with the very first Balanced Budget Amendment when there was 32 requests. 2 Requests short.
      ( Side note : Those 32 requests are still valid. No state legislature has removed their requests, and there is no time limit or limitation on those requests. All the BBA proponents need is 2 more states not in those original 32 and BOOM Constitutional convention ).
      Now, with 34 states … the Federal government ( Congress ) HAS NO CHOICE but to schedule an Article V convention.
      What happens there and what is needed to make an Amendment proposal move forward is unclear. It could be 3/4 ( like the House/Senate process ) it could be 50%+1 … it basically could be anything the Convention approves at the beginning of the convention and could actually change from convention to convention.
      BUT … if something moves forward as a proposed Amendment, then the Federal Government decides if it is Ratified by the States in legislature or State Convention.
      NOTE : There is no option to NOT forward it to the states. It IS forwarded. PERIOD.

      You can see, in the second clause … Congress only collects applications, schedules conventions, and decides the ratification process from two choices.
      Congress gets no say, it doesn't matter if they like it or not.
      The Senate has no role in this whatsoever. They are irrelevant.
      The President gets no veto … The President is irrelevant in ALL Amendment processes.

      This means the STATES may change the basic agreement WITHOUT the Federal government's consent.
      Which is the definition of a Federalism.
      The STATES can redefine the limits of the Commerce clause anytime they want and the US Supreme Court, Congress, Senate andPresident can only gulp and say "Okay!"

      BTW : Clause three prohibits the restructuring of the Senate without a 50-0 vote. Every state is guaranteed "equal" representation in the Senate. Equal does not mean "We get 10 they get 2" so even California saying no, means no.
      It also probably bans the abolishment without a 50-0 vote because the equal representation also covers equal say in those functions delegated to the Senate ( i.e. treaty approval and Presidential appointment approval, etc. ) though it is possible I suppose to create a larger Congress but to say on those functions that used to be the Senate, Congress votes where every state gets only 1 vote.

      • Robb Nunya says:

        I'd HATE to see what a modern coalition of states would come up with in a Constitutional Convention, BTW… That would be a nightmare.

        • Chrome says:

          no kidding.

          Though there would be ONE good one come out of it … hell even the OWS crowd wants it.
          Term limits for Congress and the Senate.

      • Condor says:

        Very few in the electorate today understand or appreciate that we are a collective of sovereign, which big or small have equal rights. Eliminating the Electoral College is a clear example of the mob mentality Progs embrace.

    13. mvymvy says:

      In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole.

      Senator Robert E. Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee for President in 1996 and Republican nominee for Vice President in 1976, stated in a 1979 floor speech:
      “Many persons have the impression that the electoral college benefits those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a misconception. Through my experience with the Republican National Committee and as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1976, it became very clear that the populous states with their large blocks of electoral votes were the crucial states. It was in these states that we focused our efforts.
      “Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance.
      “Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in States that are perceived to be single party states.

    14. Jeff Georgia says:

      Remember the Bush/Gore vote recount debacle a few years ago in Florida? Hundreds of lawyers, hanging chads, court rulings? Now consider what a future Presidential popular vote within 1/2% nationwide would look like. Do you think they'll demand a recount? But where? Each state, each county, each precinct throughout the nation will have to recount, complete with millions of lawyers looking over millions of recounter's shoulders, arguments over hanging chads, incomplete dots, computer error/malfunction/fraud, ballots left in the trunks of cars, missing ballot boxes. Court cases in every state, every county. Some are still arguing that Gore should have won. A nationwide recount would be just what we need to destroy the rule of law in America.

      If you want to fix something, consider a proportional allocation of electors rather than winner-take-all that exists in some states. With that, you don't have to change the Constitution, which requires an Electoral College, but leaves the determination of how electors are selected to the states, and prevents the domination of a few states.

      BTW, for those who apparently don't understand, the number of electors allocated to a state IS based on population. A state gets one elector for each Congressman and Senator from that state. Each state has two Senators, so that's two electors. The number of Representatives a state has is based on the census population every 10 years. The states with the smallest populations thus have at least 3 electors (2 for each Senator plus 1 for the minimum number of Representatives). Large population states like CA get 55 electors. The state legislature or state constitution determines how electors are selected and how they are allowed to vote. Only two states require proportional allocation–all the rest are winner-take-all, and most states require that their electors pledge to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their respective states.

      • mvymvy says:

        The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

        The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes), no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

        Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

        The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

        The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

        A nationwide recount would not happen. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and recount. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.

        Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

        The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

        No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

        The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.

        • Harry says:

          Your premise that no one would have demanded a recount in 2000 if there was a National Popular Vote is incorrect. There would have been demands for recounts in Florida, in New York, in Illinois, in Michigan… etc. Also, half a million votes can quickly be manufactured or eliminated with a few key lawsuits in certain locations, look at Minnesota in 2008. Oh and although you have not mentioned it (and thank you for that), what happened in Florida was not a Constitutional Crisis, but the Constitution working exactly as planned.

          • mvymvy says:

            According to Wikipedia
            Franken was trailing Coleman by 215 votes. After reviewing ballots that had been challenged during the recount and counting 953 wrongly rejected absentee ballots, the State Canvassing Board officially certified the recount results with Franken holding a 225-vote lead.

            The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes), no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

            Average change in the margin of victory in statewide recounts 296 x 51 I50 states and DC) = 15,096

            In 2000 there would not have been demands for recounts.

      • mvymvy says:

        The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.

        Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

        National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

        With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states and less than 60 districts. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

      • mvymvy says:

        No states use the proportional allocation method.

        Maine and Nebraska award their electoral votes to the winners of their congressional districts.

        Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness, or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, the congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of the selection of president by the U.S. House of Representatives (at 9% approval rating now).

      • Harry says:

        Keep in mind that if the states use a proportional allocation of electors, it MUST be the several states who make that choice, and not a command handed down by fiat from the federal government. As for the National Popular Vote Bill, if that was passed in Washington, it would still be unconstitutional because it takes away the choice of the several states, and I can think of many states that will never enact such a bill.

    15. Deb says:

      The only thing the poll proves is that people don't understand the system of checks and balances in place in regards to the way we elect a president. Without the electoral college, as others have noted, the largest states or regions would garner all the attention and resources a presidential campaign brings with it. That leaves those living in smaller states with virtually no part in the process. And if the NPV is approved through a compact, which turns the electoral vote into a ceremonial vote, rather than an ammendment process, can you imagine the uprising when the voters from a state that voted in the majority for Obama have to award their electoral votes to the Republican candidate. You think OWS is out of control now? Just wait….

      • mvymvy says:

        As I noted above:

        With the current system, it could only take winning the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

        But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

        Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.

        Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.

        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 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

        Most voters don't 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 directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    16. HES says:

      This ain't rocket science: it has been pointed out previously and often that if the raw vote of the country elects the President, then the ten most populous states will do the electing, and the candidates will not even deign to visit the other 40. And if you only have to buy votes (radio, TV, newspapers, etc.) in ten or twelve states, the money is more effectively spent. I believe we should be very suspicious of the 'popular vote" people, because they know all this, too.
      All this was discussed during the Constitutional Convention and was presumably settled then, for the same reasons I've presented. "There is nothing new under the sun," it was once written…….

      • mvymvy says:

        The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

        The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

        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."

        The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to over 2/3rds of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

        Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

        More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

        States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

        With the current system, it could only take winning the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

        But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

        The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

    17. Deb says:

      Regarding Election Fraud – NPV would cancel good votes from your state with fraudulent votes from other states. There are states which: allow illegal aliens to vote (illegal should say it all but it doesn't); have same day registration (who knows how many other communities they have voted in that same day! ; not all communities conduct elections with integrity (do you remember the missing box full of votes 'found' in the Al Franken election? or the number of inmates who voted but shouldn't have yet there votes were counted); mail-in only voting (where is the verification of who is actually voting?); no ID required to vote in many states (as in MA, joe shmoe can tell the election inspector yeah that's sally smith. that's it, 'sally smith' votes. who else did 'sally smith' and the busload of people she came with, vote as that day?).
      Election fraud will still exist regardless of electoral college or npv system, but the electoral college system limits the damage to one state rather than allowing cancellation of good votes across the entire country!

      • mvymvy says:

        The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and preserves state control of elections and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President.

        A League of Women Voters study notes that Americans are twice as likely to get hit by lightning as to have their vote canceled out by a fraudulently cast vote.

        The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

        National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

        Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .

        For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

        Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?"

    18. Jeanne Stotler says:

      I think a popular vote would lessen the fraud that's been evident in the past, I also think a picture ID should be required and also reg. card, The fact that unqualified people ie: DMV offices, are acting as registars, needs to be eliminated and Proof of citizenship should be required. Let's clean this mess up.

      • mvymvy says:

        A League of Women Voters study notes that Americans are twice as likely to get hit by lightning as to have their vote canceled out by a fraudulently cast vote.

    19. David F. Murray says:

      A popular vote would result in the winner perhaps having much less than half the vote. Third or fourth candidates would draw off votes, so the winner might have only 35 % of the vote. The Electoral College forces the choice down to two, or maybe three candidates. Europe sees the results of having to have coalitions to form governments. The founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

      • mvymvy says:

        In the current system, it could only take winning the plurality of the vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win with a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

        If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured apocalyptic outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. 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 the last 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 16 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), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

        If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

    20. CarolynAlder says:

      In every discussion on the Electoral College the fact that is being overlooked is that "independent" Electors were to "nominate" (name) two equally outstanding individuals who could be possible presidential candidates. (One not from their own state.) Wise individuals seeking wise individuals for the chief executive, not the man seeking the office.

      The Electors assigned task was at the beginning of the selection process–not a rubber stamp after a "popular" election by the people. There was not multi-year, multi-millions campaigning, campaign promises, party politics, etc. He was not the king of the people, the king of a party or legislator in chief. The States make the final selection from the five highest nominated individuals in the House of Representatives, each State having one vote, requiring a majority of the States to the final choice. Talk about "states rights", "state sovereignty", federalism in practice!

      The only branch of the Federal government that was directly elected by the people was the House of Representatives. Part of the genius of the Framers' constitution was that each branch was elected by a different means, to represent a different interest, for a different length of years.

      We are soooo far gone (from constitutional principles and the thinking of the Framers) that it is almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

    21. mgk says:

      THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE, WHEN REID OF NEVADA WAS RE-ELECTED, THERE WAS AN ISSUE THAT AROSE THERE, THAT VERY DAY, ABOUT THE VOTING MACHINES BEING PRE-LOADED WITH "REID'S" NAME, LOOK IT UP.

      NATURALLY, WE WERE ALL TREATED AS IDIOTS AND TOLD 'NOT TO WORRY, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. AND THEY SENT OUT UNION MEMBERS TO "FIX" THE VOTING MACHINES!

      I SURE BET THEY DID THAT, THEY "FIXED" THEM ALRIGHT.

      I AM DEEPLY TROUBLED THAT A PARTISAN MEMBER GROUP WILL BE ON HAND TO "FIX" HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF VOTING MACHINES ON THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. SINCE OBAMA IS IN BED WITH THE UNIONS, IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS "FAIR" TO HAVE HIS VERY SUPPORTERS "FIX" ANY MACHINES THAT COULD OR WOULD INFLUENCE WITH UNTRUE VOTES, THE OUTCOME OF THE NEXT ELECTION.

      I HEREBY SUGGEST, REQUEST AND JUST NEARLY DEMAND, (RESPECTFULLY) ON BEHALF OF THE FREEDOM-LOVING, TRUSTING AMERICAN BASE, TO MAKE IT A POINT TODAY TO PUT INTO PLACE ANY "REPAIRS NEEDED" TO BE HANDLED BY EITHER BOTH PARTIES WITH PHOTOGRAPHY, PARTS AND FACES ATTACHED TO THE "REPAIRS" TO ANY AND ALL MACHINES THAT SEEM TO BE PRE-LOADED OR IN AUTHEN TIC IN ANY WAY ON THAT KEY DATE.

      AS GEORGE SOROS STATED SO BOLDLY, "…HAVING THE SEC'Y OF STATE'S ON YOUR SIDE IS KEY IN RAZOR CLOSE ELECTIONS" AND THEY PUT MANY IN PLACE IN OBAMA'S TENURE TO DATE.

      IT IS CLEAR THAT OBAMA AND HIS "CZARS" ARE ANTI-AMERICAN.
      THEY DESPISE MOST OF US AND WANT THE TOTAL CHANGE WE ARE NOW WITNESSING TODAY IN OUR GREAT NATION.
      ALL AMERICA'S PROMISES TO OUR ANCESTOR'S HOPES AND DREAMS FOR FREE LIFE AND LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, AS THE STATUE OF LIBERTY WAS IN THE DISTANCE COMING CLOSER FOR THEM BUT HERE AND NOW MY FRIENDS, FOR ALL OF US, TODAY, THOSE GREAT VALUES, BELIEFS AND GOALS ARE FADING AWAY, DAY BY DAY, ONE BY ONE.

      PLEASE REPRESENT THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO SHARE THIS VIEW AND SEE THE MACHINERY IN PLACE …WORKING AGAINST US.

      I WAS A VOLUNTEER AT OUR LOCAL POLLING LOCATION AND THE VIEWING OF THE ROSTERS HALF WAY THRU THE DAY WAS ODD INDEED.
      THE LEAD OR HEAD POLLING CLERK WAS WEARING HIS DEM COLORS BLAZING AWAY AND I PASSED THAT ALONG TO THE HIGHER UP'S IN MY AREA,

      HE ALLOWED THE 'STRANGER' TO TAKE THE LOGS OF SIGN IN VOTING SHEETS AWAY FROM OUR EYES AND HE COULD HAVE DONE ANY NUMBER OF THINGS WITH IT… COPY IT REPLACE IT OR EVEN REMOVE PAGES I DON’T KNOW – BUIT THE PRECINCT CLERK ON THE PHONE NOTED IT AND AWAY WE WENT TO RE-ELECTING BOXER FOR SENATE, A HUGE PAINFUL DAMAGING LOSS TO OUR BELOVED CALIFORNIA.

      I AM TELLIING YOU THAT IF OBAMA CAN GET IN AGAIN, WE ARE FINISHED FOR ATLEAST A DECADE.
      LOTS OF TRUE AMERICANS WILL HAVE PASSED AWAY AND THIS ROGUE ELEMENT (OCCUPY WALLSTREET) FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IS BEING PAID BY SOROS ET AL TO UNDERMINE AND TAKE DOWN THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH, MAY WELL SUCCEED.

      MANY OF OUR POLITICIANS ARE OUR ENEMIES, INTELLECTUALLY. BE TRUTHFUL
      HARRY REID NEEDS TO RETIRE
      MANY OF THE SENATE ARE UNTRUTHFUL AND MANIPULATED BY "SECRET" OWNERS.

      I DEMAND A TRUTH TO THE VOTE ESPECIALLY IN STATES LIKE CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, NEW YORK ILLINOIS, ACTUALLY IN MOST OF THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES WARRANT IT AND WE NEED IT TO BELIEVE THAT IT STILL COUNTS EVEN IN THE CASE OF BARACK OBAMA WHO HASN’T HAD TO ANSWER ANY HARD QUESTIONS BECAUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE THE WHITE HOUSE IS IMMUNE TO PRESS AS IF THEY "OWN" THE PRESS,HMMM JEFF IMMELT OH THAT’S RIGHT HE OWNS NBC. THAT'S NOT A "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" IS IT?

      JUST LOOK AT WHAT HE HAS DONE TO US IN 3 AND A HALF YEARS…IT IS HORRIBLE, SCARY AND I WANT IT STOPPED

      PRE-EMPTIVE MOVES ARE KEY…LET'S SHOW THEM THE RIGHT WAY TO MAINTAIN OUR VOTING SYSTEM AS TRUE AND NON-CORRUPT.
      WE DO NOT WANT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY RUN BY UNION MOB BOSSES LIKE TRUMPKA ET AL.

      PLEASE PASS THIS ALL THE WAY UP TO THE TOP AND GET SOMETHING DONE FOR THE PEOPLE, AS THERE ARE SO MANY FIRES STARTED BY THIS ADMINISTRATION, IN NEGATIVE WAYS, WE HAVE TO REMAIN FOCUSED AS A LASER. LET’S MAKE SURE OUR VOTES COUNT TRULY.

      SINCERELY,
      Ms. Gayle

    22. e First President till now the Media has brain Washed the public to win at the White House. The Media is going to steer you away from Ron Paul.And Obama will in fact as well as the rich to push Any GOP other then Ron Paul knowing Obama could win! It takes several public votes to over power your states elector o votes.NOW PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER OVER THE MEDIA ! Now people have the chance to be the MEDIA Threw the networks of the internet and the people SAY Ron Paul .So All You NEED to SPAM AND DEBATE FOR RON PAUL NOW ! we cant lose because we have nothing to hide and don't change our believe"s .RON PAUL 2012.
      NOW i HAVE TO GO TAKE A ROMNEY & WIPE MY HERMAN AND FLUSH OBAMA DOWN THE TOILET !

    23. Michael says:

      The ideal solution would be to have a popular vote only within congressional districts and the majority winner within that district would win that districts' electoral vote. This would eliminate the "red" or "blue" states and also force candidates to pay more attention to more voters in more areas. This would ensure fair, apportioned, and PROPORTIONATE representation and allocation of electoral votes.

      We are under attack from the popular vote movement and it will alter our government forever. If the National Popular Vote movement succeeds, the very nature of the Executive will change forever. It is a closet movement, it is ongoing, and they are halfway there to achieving their goal.
      http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/sta

      • Ginny says:

        I totally agree with you Michael. The congressional district method, in my opinion, is the best and most fair way of ensuring that every single person's vote is counted. The only problem I see with the method is the gerrymandering that would more than likely spiral out of control.

    24. O2BMe says:

      We have to be very careful when we talk about changing the Constitution. Our founding fathers gave seious thought when writing it. It was to keep us free and keep us from ever being like any European country. We are not a democracy, we are a federation of states. This allows us if we do not like what the government is doing in the state we live in we can move to another state. Our national government has taken away too many of our states' rights already.

    25. Ted says:

      Amending the Constitution that our forefathers meant to be upheld is absolutely proposterous. The so called electorial college is obviously a group comprised from the senate and the house of representatives that are nothing but a bunch of overpayed, pompous, rich people who want to be richer, and who are out for themselves. They do not care about America as they are profit whores who could care less about the modern American society. Hard working people have built this country, the scabs and the careless heirs of fortune have all taken their turns trying to burn it down ie.. (O'Bama). Worthless spending and concentration on all the wrong issues have taken their toll. A popular vote would be proper and respectful to the people of this great United States Of America. Any proof of our country's financial growth will show more than what we are shown now while congress votes themselves more raises. Our country not going continously in debt would be a great step forward. Only time will tell…

    26. Brian says:

      My question has always been "Why is each state not treated equally regardless of population?" If each state was given only one vote for president it would force the candidates to focus on all states not just those with large populations. Its important to remember that we are not a democracy. We are a republic. In a democracy the mob rules the day. In a republic the land is ruled by law, which in our case is the constitution.

      • ChrisRS says:

        Each state awarding electors proportionally would slove the problem. Awarding electors based on congressionsal distric sounds good, bith often thase districts are heavily gerrymandered to achieve a specific outcome.District boundaries are very politically motived. DIstrivct by district voting would be the looarge state small state situation on a smaller basis. In most states thater are only a handfull of competitive distrists. IN most districts, your vote only matters if yoiu are voting with the preestablished district "party"

    27. Tim Duemig says:

      With the electoral college in place, independant candidates will never have a chance at becoming president. We need to to do away with parties and go with popular vote.

    28. watchingfromthewaves says:

      ''Candidates who focus too narrowly on a handful of states, regions, or metropolitan population centers will not be successful in the Electoral College" This is happening now with the electoral vote! So on with the popular vote! hear hear!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×