• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The National Popular Vote Scheme Isn’t So Popular

    The Heritage Foundation and the State Government Leadership Foundation are hosting an exciting event on December 7 at Heritage on the Electoral College and the proposed “National Popular Vote” (NPV) plan. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) and the chief election officials of five states, Secretaries of State Beth Chapman (Alabama), Tre Hargett (Tennessee), Delbert Hosemann (Mississippi), Kris Kobach (Kansas), and Matt Schultz (Iowa), will discuss the advantages of the Electoral College and the political, practical, and constitutional problems with the NPV.

    As our Heritage Legal Memorandum explains, the NPV would effectively abolish the Electoral College without going through the formal process of amending the Constitution. The NPV plan proposes an interstate compact (without the consent of Congress) in which participating states agree in advance to automatically allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote (the highest vote getter even if only a plurality), disregarding the popular vote results in their state. The NPV supposedly would go into effect as soon as “states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes” needed to win an election (270 votes) join the compact.

    The NPV would undermine the protections of the Electoral College. It would diminish the influence of smaller states and lead to more recounts and contentious conflicts over the results of presidential elections. It could also encourage voter fraud. It might result in presidents being elected with very small pluralities, or someone being elected who failed to qualify for the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It strikes directly at the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic that balances popular sovereignty with structural protections for state governments and minority interests.

    We began a public discussion of this topic at a panel presentation on October 28 but determined that the threat posed by the NPV deserves even more attention, especially from knowledgeable election officials and congressional leaders like Senator McConnell. On December 7, Senator McConnell will give a keynote address about the Electoral College and its purpose of “ensuring the participation of a broad regional diversity in the outcome of elections.” The five Secretaries of State will discuss the issues that would arise from administering the NPV, as well as their concerns over its constitutionality and other problems it could cause.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    61 Responses to The National Popular Vote Scheme Isn’t So Popular

    1. steve h says:

      Seriously? An event to discuss legislation with the Republican Senate Leader and 5 Republican Secretaries of State. There's the bipartisan discussion we all know and love with Heritage. There is only one view – ours.

      It's obvious Republicans oppose a pupolar vote. They'd rather game the outdated electoral college system to win instead of going with what the true majority of Americans want. Just sad anyone would oppose a national popular vote and hold on to these outdated ruels that made sense 150 years ago but no longer make any sense at all.

      They want it to stay in place, because they know they would lose under a popular vote.

      • An American says:

        They still make sense inthe less populated states. Can you even imagine, that the east and west coasts would elect every President. Why would anyone waste time coming to the midwest?f The taxescollected would go to enrich the coasts.(not to mention payoff China)

      • joe says:

        need proportional state electoral vote not winner take all

        • 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.

      • Bobbie says:

        We'd rather there was integrity in the voting process. If you can't meet that, don't vote. Easy enough for the simplest of minds. Popular vote is juvenile and filled with corrupt ways to cheat the system. Aren't we grown adults? Don't we want grown adults to run the country? Integrity and ways that promote it is never outdated. Doesn't the country deserve to have the better person win through an honest election that eliminates ways to cheat?

        1st choice. 2nd choice. 3rd choice. How pathetically childish! more ways to cheat!!

      • Mike, Wichita Falls says:

        What happened in the last 150 years that the electoral college system no longer makes any sense?

        If you do not like it and think it is outdated and an overwhelming majority of citizens agree with you, then change the Constitution.

        • 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 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states).

          Because of state-by-state enacted winner-take-all laws awarding electoral votes, recent candidates have concentrated their attention on only the handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now. More than two-thirds of their time and money have been focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. More than two-thirds of the states and Americans have been merely spectators to presidential elections.

          Since World War II, a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.

          The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.

          Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

          In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

          The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

          What the current U.S. Constitution says is "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."

      • marjoire says:

        Are you really that uneducated? The electoral college was put in place to give each state a voice based on their population. We are not a democracy but a Representative republic. Pure democracies do not work

      • Brimstone100 says:

        Everyone considering the NPV should read what constitutional expert, Publius Huldah says about the NPV being a very bad idea.
        http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nat

    2. gjt says:

      Steve, if the NPV goes through you will see candidates flocking to the major population centers on both coasts and ignoring the rest of the county. Fly-over will truely become fly-over country in that case. They will pander to needs of the few and ignore issues important to the smaller states and midwest. Is that what you are hoping for? The second this happens it will be the end of main street politics. Why would a candidate bother visiting rural or small town voters when they don't really need their votes to win?

      With the electoral college system, each state is important and all get a say in the election process. Made perfect sense to our founders and to those that look at this issue closely.

    3. Jeff says:

      Exactly, Steve. That's why we're not a DEMOCRACY, we're a REPUBLIC. Democracy is two wolves and a rabbit voting on what's for dinner. It doesn't work. With a pure democracy – i.e. popular vote – EVERYONE is going to vote themselves onto the welfare roles, and there will be no one left to fund it.

      Thank God people like you aren't in charge… yet.

    4. AD-RtR/OS! says:

      Anyone who is determined enough can always buy enough popular votes; but that isn't what a republic is about, and if you're ignorant of that fact, you can blame a teacher.

    5. chatmandu002 says:

      I am for the popular vote election of the president, but I am against the NPV plan. I believe that a constitutional amendment must be passed to allow the popular vote and eliminate the Electoral College.

      The popular vote amendment should require that the winner of a national popular vote for president must win a majority of those voting and that if no majority is obtained then there will be a run-off election between the top two candidates one month later.

      • mvymvy says:

        With the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's electoral votes.

        Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

        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).

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

        Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

    6. NPV Supporter says:

      The National Popular Vote Intiative does not undermine the intentions of the Founding Fathers in establishing the Electoral College. The Winner take-all rule currently employed in 48 states and the District of Columbia was not instituted by the Founding Fathers. In fact, only three of the states employed this method in the nations inaugural election in 1789. States began to shift to this system, not out of any reverence for the Founding Fathers, but by the majority party in the state legislators, trying to maximize the Electoral votes for their parties nominee. Accordingly, it was partisan parochial politics which effectuated this method of selected presidential electors.

      The founders never came to a conclusion about how states should award their electors. In respecting Federalism, they delegated that power to the respective states. The National Popular Vote Initiative is a state-by state compact; in which the states and the District of Columbia agree to award their Electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. This is constitutionally permissible. There is no language in the U.S. Constitution mandating states to award their electoral votes a certain way. That is the prerogative of the states.

      It is fallacious to assert that the current system benefits the small states. In addition to their electoral insignificance, other than New Hampshire, each of the smallest 13 states is a safe state. Wyoming and Idaho are two of the reddest states in the nation. Neither has chosen a Democrat for President since Lyndon B. Johnson swept the nation in a landslide in 1964. Neither is likely to be a showdown state anytime soon. In 2008, Republican John McCain won the Idaho with a resounding 63.1% of the vote. He won Wyoming with 64.8% of the vote. In addition, McCain won Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota formidable margins.

      Contrariwise, the other six smallest states are some of the bluest in the nation. In fact, Obama’s best electoral performance was in the District of Columbia, with just 3 electoral votes. His next four best showings were in the three of the six smallest states, Hawaii, Vermont, and Rhode Island, respectively (McCain did not win a single county in any of these states.) Obama won the other two smallest states, Delaware, and Vermont by over 15% of the vote.

      The result of the current winner-take all system employed in 48 states is that the concerns of small states are ignored. Candidates allocate their respective time and resources in electorally rich swing states like Florida and Ohio, and Pennsylvania, while ignoring the small states, where the elections have been decided on paper before the campaign season even begins.

      • frjm says:

        you really need to read more. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Read Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution.

      • Sara says:

        Of course it undermines the decision of the Founding Fathers to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. You are probably one of the bloggers from the far left. This is the far left's path to Utopia. ACORN must be salivating.

    7. Cary johnson says:

      Do not wish to change what has worked for our country for over 230 years. The large cities would have radicals that could whip up community organizers into out voting rural areas of the country based on smooth talking or slick talking people like Obama. Why change what has worked? Why do what Europe does?

      • prisjun says:

        Tell that to "Our Dear Leader!"

      • mvymvy says:

        The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (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, ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, will not reach out to about 76% 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.

        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 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% 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 presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

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

        The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

      • mvymvy says:

        With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
        The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

        Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.

        If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

      • mvymvy says:

        The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

        If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

        A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

        The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

        Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

        In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

        Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

        There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

        The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would 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.

    8. ricp says:

      There is no such thing as a "National Popular Vote"! We are a nation of 50 separate democracies (states) bound together by the Constitution into one Republic. Each state is a democracy and as such has a popular vote within its borders for the selection of President and then they assign Electors to reflect that choice in the Electoral College for President.

      Only Progressives want to eliminate the College and thus remove any influence states that are smaller in population or density might have in the selection of a President. This way virtually only New York, California, Texas, Florida and a few others would control the entire process for good or bad. Small states would never hear from a Presidential candidate as their votes would essentially not matter. The electoral College and the two per state make up of the Senate are real bothers to progressives and need to be safeguarded for the good of the Republic!

      • mvymvy says:

        National Popular Vote is a nonpartisan coalition of legislators, scholars, constitutionalists and grassroots activists committed to preserving the Electoral College, while guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states.

        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.

        Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: "I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
        It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.

        National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it." http://tinyurl.com/3z5brge

        Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.

        Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other. http://tinyurl.com/46eo5ud

        Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote " http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ include:

        Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

        James Brulte served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

        Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

        Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

        Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

        In a new Gallup poll, support for a national popular vote by political affiliation is now:
        53% among Republicans, 61% among Independents, and 71% among Democrats. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150245/americans-swap-

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

      • mvymvy says:

        19 of the 22 smallest states do not matter NOW.

        Now presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. When and where votes don't matter, candidates ignore those areas and the issues they care about most.

        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): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

        In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers and been enacted by three jurisdictions.

        Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections– NH NM, and NV. These three states contain only 14 (8%) of the 22 medium-lowest population states' total 166 electoral votes.

      • mvymvy says:

        With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency — 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.

        Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
        * Texas (62% Republican),
        * New York (59% Democratic),
        * Georgia (58% Republican),
        * North Carolina (56% Republican),
        * Illinois (55% Democratic),
        * California (55% Democratic), and
        * New Jersey (53% Democratic).

        In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
        * Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
        * New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
        * Georgia — 544,634 Republican
        * North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
        * Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
        * California — 1,023,560 Democratic
        * New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic

        To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

      • mvymvy says:

        National Popular Vote is a nonpartisan coalition of legislators, scholars, constitutionalists and grassroots activists committed to preserving the Electoral College, while guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states.

        The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

        The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution.

        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.

        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.

        Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans:
        "I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
        It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.

        National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it." http://tinyurl.com/3z5brge

        Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

        With National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, because states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), would award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning states.

        Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. More than 2/3rds of states and voters are ignored.

        Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (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 elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. When and where votes don't matter, candidates ignore those areas and the issues they care about most.

        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): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

        In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

        With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency — that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

        With National Popular Vote, big states that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates' attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split — 5 "red states (TX, FL, OH, NC, and GA) and 6 "blue" states (CA, NY, IL, PA, MI, and NJ). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (TX and FL) 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. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

    9. Carl says:

      NPV = mob rule, folks.
      You don't want that.
      The framers were smarter than that.

      • mvymvy says:

        In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states. Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.

        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, were 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 for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states 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 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. Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where more than 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now. The majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state. 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like GA and TX are ignored. That’s over 85 million voters.

        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 now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

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

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

    10. Rich Rubino says:

      Not all conservatives are opposed to the national popular vote. Take a look at this article by former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) supporting the plan. http://www.popularvoteblog.com/

    11. Tom Holthaus says:

      Leave it alone. Framers knew what they were doing and wanted to prevent "mob-rule"

    12. Erik Osbun says:

      Without a constitutional amendment, I am against the popular vote scheme.

      • mvymvy says:

        The U.S. Constitution says "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 normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law.

        Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

        In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

        In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

        In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

        The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

      • Bri says:

        It's ridiculous this is even a topic. Mob rule has never and will never work for the will of the people. I don't even want it if they do make a constitutional amendment. We have over 70 socialists in Congress now and they need to be run out of town. If they want to mess up a country they can go elsewhere. The electoral college is part of what has kept this country safe. The idiots in Congress right now do NOT have the best interest of the people at heart. That's our fault for not paying enough attention to who was being voted in. Real change is needed but not in the Electoral College.

    13. David C. Barrett,Sr says:

      Our Constitution has worked satisfactorally for our more than 200 years of existence, If it ain't broke, Don't fix it!!

    14. jColes says:

      The NPV egg was laid by Progressives.
      It is a rotten egg, spoiled & defective in every way.
      The Electoral College is our hedge against corrupted elections.
      In most states, the Electors are bound by the popular vote results only through one or two ballots; after which, if additional votes are required they may vote their conscience…and Electors are generally tied to the national candidate who appears at the top of the ballot…the Electors are sometimes listed in smaller type under the candidate's name…in essence, the popular vote is for the Electors, not the candidate.
      I filed papers two weeks ago to become a Presidential Elector for my state.

    15. Mr. Conservative says:

      It is worth noting that the two main PAID lobbyists for this measure are receiving funding from liberal/"progressive" organizations. (Do what the Left does, conservative and tea party friends, and follow the money.)

      You should also note that one of these lobbyists was a notoriously squishy RINO (Republican in name only) state legislator who likes to flaunt his GOP affiliation as if it meant that he is a conservative. It doesn't. He isn't. Almost everything about the NPV initiative, including the dishonest manner in which it is being packaged, proves that.

    16. blakely says:

      A NPV is only unpopular with the ruling elete it is very popular with dis-enfranchised voters like myself.we the people need to get rid of the House , Senate AND the President since nether the republicans OR the democrats know how to do any thing but spend money that is NOT their's to spend and then act like they've done a great service by putting america into fincial ruin.

    17. Bill Scott says:

      At the founding of our nation there was more population in the North than the South. It was concievable that the states with the largest population could have elected the president without any input for the smaller states. Majority rules wasn't a good idea then and is not a good idea now. The states ratified a constitution with more "can nots" than "cans" for the federal government, even though they seem to want to take more and more each day (and do). Yes there have been elections where the majority vote getter did not get presidency and thank God it happened. The president is to represent all of the will of the people in that state not just the majority of votes in another state. A NPV election will end up breaking up the United States or lead to another civil war.

      • mvymvy says:

        With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

        National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. 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. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

        Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . 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.

        Since World War II, a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.

        Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson (R), who is one of many Republican supporters of National Popular Vote, believes another election like the one in 2000 would be devastating. “A president in this day and time doesn’t need to come in office with any questions as to their legitimacy having not gotten the most votes. It’s just that simple.”

    18. Trent says:

      Thanks to Heritage for exposing NPV and helping to educate the public about the benefits of our current system. No political system will ever be perfect, but the current Electoral College works much better than the proposed NPV interstate compact, which is either a recipe for eventual disaster or, more likely, a way to move toward more centralized control of election administration by the federal government.

      • mvymvy says:

        The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II). The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and preserves state control of elections.

    19. Jacxk Dayley says:

      Electing the President of the United States should not be by popular vote. I would say if you want to
      change voting remove I think its the 17th amendment. The states need more input into our government
      by chosing their Senators not less. Our founding Fathers were very wise on these two issues.

    20. Jacxk Dayley says:

      I am very apposed to electing our president by popular vote. If you want to change voting Cancel the
      I think its the 17th amendment. The states need more input into government not less. Our founding
      were right in the beginning on these two issues.

    21. Alan Bartley says:

      We need to keep the electorial college as it is. The popular vote will cut out all the smaller states from playing a part in our national elections by giving the more populated states more power and control in the elections. Also gives certain interest the opportunity to get these special interest the chance to just say , move here and gain control. Our forefathers was very smart to see this and to give everyone a say and a vote.50 states, not just the more populated and richer states to the north. Leave the constitution alone, it works and has from it's founding.Maybe more people should read and study it.

    22. Who here remembers with fondness the protracted, eight-month-long dispute between Norm Coleman and Al Franken over the disposition of the Senate seat for Minnesota? How many of us would like to see that circus repeated for the office of the President? The NPV may not introduce that chaos immediately, but the logical succeeding step will, and it won't require another 230 years to take that next step.

      Prudence, friends. Prudence.

      • mvymvy says:

        The example of the Minnesota recount for Senator is not applicable.

        For presidential elections, 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.

        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.

        We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a 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 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.

    23. Paul Wheaton says:

      If my state votes for one person for President, but another person wins the national popular vote, then the votes of the people of my state would be disregarded under the NPV compact. If my State legislature subsequently decides that the popular will in our state should not be disregarded and appoints that slate of Presidential Electors which the people of my State chose–a plenary, absolute, and complete power which any state legislature may resume at any time–then that might tip the balance in the Electoral College to the NON-NPV plurality winning candidate. So who are you going to SUE in order to enforce the outcome under the NPV? There's no way to enforce it because what my State legislature would have done is 100% constitutional–even AFTER the popular election. Read the Bush vs. Gore (2000) decision.

      So, what the NPV compact amounts to is an agreement to elect BLUE candidates, but if the NPV should work out to elect a RED candidate, then the States are FREE to RENEGE on the NPV compact and elect a BLUE candidate. The "system" of elected the President should be IMPARTIAL. That's rule #1. What you get when you mix the NPV compact with the Electoral College is a rigged system. If you want to improve upon the present Electoral College system then AMEND the Constitution in the usual way–if you can. Otherwise, realize that none of the States are locked into the "winner-take-all" system, and that a better system may will be that used at present by Maine and Nebraska, where the Electors appointed are decided as follows:

      2- Statewide popular vote
      remainder–one Elector per congressional district.

      If adopted nationwide by the States, then nearly every state would have at least one Congressional District that was competitive,

      That in itself might be a motivation to make more CD's competitive rather than safe for incumbents as States seek to win more influence in selecting the President. The Electoral College is by design a representative body and the Electors appointed ought to represent fairly the people who elect them, much like representatives elected to a legislature.

      Nobody would hold an election on a state-wide basis for a state legislature, tally all the votes in the state and then award all the seats to the political party that won a plurality. Nobody with an ounce of sense would suggest such a system on a national scale for picking the President. It simply perverts the winner-take-all concept into an even larger national problem.

      Representatives are elected by districts. Presidential Electors are representatives. Each state gets a number of Presidential Electors representing the number of members that State has in Congress, both the House and Senate. Presidential Electors ought to be elected using the same districts as Congressional Representatives and Senators. Doing this removes many of the complaints of those who favor the NPV but without magnifying the problems of the winner-take-all system to a national proportion.

      • 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 state counts and 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. 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.

        The bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

        Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

        The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

        There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

        The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes would not help make every vote matter. Largely because of gerrymandering, a smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current handful of battleground states (about 24%) that now get overwhelming attention, while more two-thirds of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

    24. mvymvy says:

      A free resource for those who are open to having common myths dispelled is
      "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote "
      Chapter 10: Responses to Myths about the National Popular Vote Plan http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EVE-CH-10_3rd

    25. Bobbie says:

      not sure why my comment was eliminated here? just wanted to say how juvenile "national popular vote" is and that 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice is so childish. eenie, meenie, minie, moe!

      integrity in the voting process is always expected. the more rules and exceptions there are the more potential for fraud and the more those suggesting more rules, the more dishonest and desperate they are. one simple rule applied to all will reduce/eliminate the ability to fraud the system like fraud the "national popular vote" derives! everybody will see the most popular through the integrity of honest voting process when the best person wins.

      • mvymvy says:

        The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

        The National Popular Vote bill 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 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

        Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . 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.

        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?"

    26. frjm says:

      Only socialists/communists would agree to a popular vote scheme. Those of us who work would then be required to support the worthless bottom feeders with more benefits as they saw fit. Over the past 40 years Socialist/Communists have been working to destroy Americas' sovereignty. With the infestation in our schools of anti-American teachers spouting the socialist/communist agenda, working parents have a hard time countering their lies with the truth.

      The socialist/communists states want to expedite the destruction of America. If they attempt to circumvent the Constitution the government still has Article IV section 4 of that Constitution to bring them in line. "The United States Shall Guarantee every State a Republican Form Of Government" This has been asserted by many advocates to prohibit the use of direct democracy procedures in the states. In a direct domocracy simple majority + 1 vote would rule the remaining population. The bottom line to this type of election would be that the east and west coast states would define the freedoms and actions of the remaining states.

    27. Setungate says:

      I say let the states interested in the NPV have at it hopefully by 2012 that way the Supreme court can overturn their presidential electoral votes disqualify them and give an easy win for a republican/conservative president elect because as it is very clear only blue states are for the NPV.

    28. Art English says:

      Just say "NO" to NPV and Obama and the EPA, and Holder, Palosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank but I digress.

    29. EarsToHear.net says:

      The NPV does undermine the "mob rule" protection the Founders built in with Federalism and the Electoral college. For an in depth coverage see: http://www.earstohear.net/Heritage/ElectoralColle… and http://www.earstohear.net/Heritage/ARepublic.html.

    30. Gary Coutin says:

      In a major address to Congress in 1828, President Andrew Jackson delivered these words denying the power of the Electoral College, by its vote in December, to reverse the vote of the American people in November. President Andrew Jackson was the guiding force of the direct vote system.

      The first principle of our system is that the majority is to govern… It must be very certain that a President elected by a minority cannot enjoy the confidence necessary to the discharge of his duties. [ii]

      To subject the majority to a minority in the choice of Chief Magistrate is to impose slavery upon the people. As to the identity of their representatives, the vote of the people is King:

      To the people belongs the right of electing their chief magistrate; it was never designed that their choice should, in any case, be defeated, either by the intervention of electoral colleges, or by the agency confided, under certain contingencies, to the House of Representatives. [i]

      Yours Truly

      Gary Coutin
      600 West 19th Street #F10
      Costa Mesa, CA 92627
      gmcoutin2000@yahoo.com

    31. Gary Coutin says:

      If the Declaration of Independence is true, the Electoral College is false. If the Declaration is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Electoral College is Unconstitutional. The Civil War arose because the Constitution of 1787 departed from the principles of the Declaration of 1776.

      Lincoln and the Republicans called for return to the principles of the Supremacy of the Declaration. See the political platforms of 1856 and 1860. All states admitted to the Union after Gettysburg recognized the Supremacy of the Declaration over the provisions of the Constitution to the contrary.

      Gary Coutin

    32. Carl NElson says:

      Hello; since You Are On the Subject Of { VOTING } I Wish To Point Out How Our Government Has Allowed { ILLEGALS } Other Than American Qualified Citizen Voters To vote { Rig } This Sacred Right To Vote For, And choosing Our Elected Officials; With No Skin Invested ;; In My Opinion This occured with The Last Elections, { By Non Patriots, ie Illegals,,, } Or Authorized American citizens, } I As well wish to Point Out What Happened With Allowing The { BLACK PANTHERS } Which Committed { A FELONY } Intimidation, As Well as threatening white voters at the pols,, of which the current administration under attorney general { HOLDER } States he will not Prosecute Said Radicals, As A Felony;; Or will Not charge Said Radicals At { ALL } ie. . { THE BLACK PANTHERS VIOLATED citizens,,i.e. American citizens Civil rights } according to law and our constitution;;; of which the current administration Has Allowed Reverse Discrimination, And A Felony; { I ask you; What would have happened, If I As An ANGLO } Patriot, Tax Paying American CITIZEN; Committed same crimes? I also ask you,, In fairness,, according to { Freedom Of SPEECH } or non discrimination, or political beliefs,,, { THIS Message SHOULD BE ALLOWED } And To Be Published;; Author, Carl Nelson; { I ASK YOU ALSO, , Where Is The Justice ? } GOD BLESS, MERRY XMAS; { This May NOT BE POLITICALLY CORRECT; } However,, What I have written { IS THE TRUTH } When one knows the TRUTH; { THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE } Please publish Or Extend A Rebuttal As to why not ;;;: Thank You;

    33. Carl NElson says:

      WHEN THE SLEEPING GIANT. AKA. AMERICA WAKES UP,, STOPS ALLOWING ILLEGAL VOTERS,,, VOTING FOR PRESIDENT, STUFFING THE BALLOT BOXES :: AMERICA WILL AGAIN BE THE HOME OF THE FREE<>><<> { BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE } thank you,, Author CARL NELSON;

    34. Brimstone100 says:

      Everyone considering the NPV should read what constitutional expert, Publius Huldah says about the NPV being a very bad idea. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nat

    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.

    ×