Illegals and Electoral Votes

Illegal aliens are a blight to the United States.  They cost far more than they contribute, raise housing and rental prices due to supply shortage, take jobs away from actual American citizens, and have a major impact on elections in the United States, even if they don’t vote.  This article has been making the rounds lately.  Though it’s from 2008, it’s worth dusting off.  Electoral votes are distributed via a system called apportionment, and it’s based on population, which includes illegals.   Via the article:

Illegal immigration played a significant role in the redistribution of seats in the past. In 1990, 12 seats were redistributed, and in 2000, 16 seats were redistributed. Louisiana was one of the states adversely affected.

In 2000, four states either lost a seat or didnt gain a seat they otherwise would have, and five states had one seat fewer than it otherwise would have.

Five states actually gained seats because of illegal aliens. Nine redistributed seats went to California alone.

These non-citizens also change the landscape of the electoral map because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations.

NINE SEATS.  And now the picture becomes ever clearer, as if it wasn’t before, about why the traitorous left is pushing open borders and illegal immigration, DACA, etc etc so hard.  It’s always been about money and power.  Always.

This article makes some projections for the 2020 census:

Based on EDS’s projections, California (+1), Colorado (+1), Florida (+1), North Carolina (+1), and Texas (+3) are in line to gain at least one seat. In some cases, EDS found that Arizona, Oregon, and/or Virginia may also pick up an additional seat.

On the other side of the ledger, Alabama (-1), Illinois (-1), Michigan (-1), Minnesota (-1), Ohio (-1), Pennsylvania (-1), Rhode Island (-1), and West Virginia (-1) are positioned to lose a seat, and in at least one projection New York also lost one.

These changes are a broad continuation of the same patterns we have seen over the last few decades. States in the South and West, mainly in the Sun Belt, continue to see larger increases in population relative to states in the Northeast and Midwest. As a result, successive reapportionments keep shifting more and more seats to Southern and Western states at the expense of Northeastern and Midwestern states, as a Crystal Ballanalysis from last year explored.

And a little further down:

Until 2010, California had gained at least one seat in every reapportionment since it became a state in 1850, but the latest estimates suggest that it may again add a seat after 2020.

It’s no surprise why the left wants to take in unsustainable amounts of illegals, and distribute them to areas of the country where they are currently weak from a voting standpoint.  Something tells me the California projection is low if anything.  We will see how much more damage Obama caused in the 2011-2016 period after the last census.

There was a big stink not too long ago when it was revealed President Trump would put the question “Are you a US Citizen” back on the census after Obama took it off for the 2010 census.  Many fear that illegals would be afraid to fill it out and thus cause losses of billions of dollars in funding to certain states, and perhaps remove electoral votes as well.  The fact that it’s controversial to ask if you’re a US citizen on our own damn census tells you how left and insane things have gotten.

I fear that as this issue continues to sow derision and division between the left and the right, the gap will become too big to bridge.  We cannot agree on anything anymore.  The left has shown their true colors in wanting a lawless society.  There will be war if we continue down this path as a nation.

20 responses

  1. An election for President based on the nationwide popular vote would eliminate the Democrat’s advantage in Electoral College members arising from the uneven distribution of non-citizens.

    Like

  2. Disagree. The electoral college is superior for a few reasons. In addition to its primary advantages of not letting densely populated urban areas perennially run the show and forcing candidates to campaign in (and suck up to) more rural communities, its decentralized nature also minimizes the chance at mass corruption/rigging. It’s much harder to coordinate busing voters/fucking with voting booths in multiple counties/states than would it be to just add 300,000 extra votes to a popular vote total.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. 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.

    Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

    16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

    16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
    The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

    None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

    Like

  5. “. . . the Electoral College system provides ripe microtargeting grounds for foreign actors who intend to sabotage presidential elections via information and disinformation campaigns, as well as by hacking our voting infrastructure. One reason is that citizens in certain states simply have more voting power than citizens in other states, such as Texas and California. This makes it easier for malign outside forces to direct their efforts.

    But what if the national popular vote determined the president instead of the Electoral College? No voter would be more electorally powerful than another. It would be more difficult for a foreign entity to sway many millions of voters scattered across the country than concentrated groups of tens of thousands of voters in just a few states. And it would be more difficult to tamper with voting systems on a nationwide basis than to hack into a handful of databases in crucial swing districts, which could alter an election’s outcome. ” – Olsen & Haas https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/20/electoral-college-threat-national-security-215626

    Because of our current winner-take-all-system of awarding electoral votes, our presidential elections are vulnerable to easy manipulation.

    Princeton Election Consortium’s Sam Wang “Today’s Electoral College opens a giant security hole.”

    Reed Hundt, former FCC Chairman, said, “A huge percentage of Americans are right in identifying that the current method of selecting the President makes our democracy vulnerable to foreign interference. Too few voters play too big a role in selecting the President. If the entire national popular vote chose the President it would be nearly impossible for bad actors to twist the thinking of millions of people and thwart the true will of the people.”

    “Swing States A Special Vulnerability In Achieving Election Security, DHS Says” – 3/21/18
    “The reality is: Given our Electoral College and our current politics, national elections are decided in this country in a few precincts, in a few key swing states,” former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson
    The current secretary of DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen, echoed those comments

    Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel suggests Voter ID helped Donald Trump win the state – 4/13/18

    After Stunning Democratic Win, North Dakota Republicans Suppressed the Native American Vote

    Tom Tancredo (R-CO) – “it is harder to mobilize massive voter fraud on the national level without getting caught, than it is to do so in a few key states . . . The National Popular Vote make [voter fraud] a smaller [problem].”

    The National Association of Secretaries of State, on a bipartisan basis (21 Democratic, 33 Republican, and 1 Independent members), stands by the integrity of our elections.

    The current system makes it easier to determine the winner of the Electoral College by microtargeting in one of the dozen battleground states.

    There was specific targeting by Russians of “purple states,” or swing states, that are critical to the outcome in the Electoral College.

    Like

  6. With the current system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), a small number of people in a closely divided “battleground” state can potentially affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.

    537 votes, all in one state determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, misinformation campaigns, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing 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.

    The National Popular Vote bill would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. 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.

    The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be 200 times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, 40 times closer than 2000 itself.

    Like

  7. You make a compelling argument, S E. I still tend to agree with Mr Wilkins but it’s had me weighing the pros and cons a lot more. I think the Founding Fathers had a good reason to opt for the Electoral College system over straight popular vote though. We don’t know how demographics will change and where people will live (city vs rural) over time. It used to be mostly rural, then transitioned to city, and now there’s many fleeing to the suburbs and beyond again. I think if it were outright popular vote a lot of the little states would be ignored entirely by all the candidates, which maybe you think is fine but I think there’s something to hearing from the smaller groups as well. Though New Hampshire and the like probably get way more coverage than is justified too. A popular vote would remove yet more power from the states too.

    Whatever system is ultimately the “best”, I think we can all agree voter ID and removing illegal aliens from consideration when giving out electoral votes would go a long way in making the system fairer. More often than not the candidate who wins the Electoral College also wins the popular vote, and I suspect it was probably much closer, if not an outright win, for President Trump if you eliminated voter fraud.

    Like

  8. Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

    Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 38+ states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.
    10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant now.

    The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “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.”

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state 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, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1880s after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state. . The Founders had been dead for decades

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    The National Popular Vote bill is 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

    Like

  9. With the National Popular Vote bill, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, 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 a handful of battleground states.

    Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored, like medium and big states where the statewide winner is predictable, because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

    Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

    Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

    State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

    In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

    In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

    The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

    Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), 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.

    Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

    Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

    Like

  10. A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter 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. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

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

    With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

    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.

    Like

  11. States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38 states and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution—
    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

    Like

  12. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution mandates the U.S. Census count every resident in the United States.

    The current system gives “illegal immigrants” a 10 vote advantage in the Electoral College for the Democrats…because they tend to live in safe Democratic states.

    An election for President based on the nationwide popular vote would eliminate the Democrat’s advantage in Electoral College members arising from the uneven distribution of non-citizens.

    Like

  13. The National Association of Secretaries of State, on a bipartisan basis (21 Democratic, 33 Republican, and 1 Independent members), stands by the integrity of our elections.

    Like

  14. 2 of the 3 most recent Presidents began their Presidencies after losing the national popular vote.

    Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) and (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. It has occurred in 5 of the nation’s 58 (9%) presidential elections.
    The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 16 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 8 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988.
    537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
    A difference of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
    In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.
    Less than 80,000 votes in 3 states determined the 2016 election, where there was a lead of over 2,8oo,ooo popular votes nationwide.

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

    Like

  15. I appreciate the comments and wealth of information, thank you! I didn’t say that it was stated anywhere in the Constitution. And I think it’s misleading to say the Founding Fathers weren’t fans of it. This is true to a certain extent, but they also thought a popular vote scenario wasn’t great either. This was something of an unhappy middle ground.

    I think it’s a little naive to think that if there was a popular vote that smaller cities and constituencies in low density areas would still be visited and given attention by candidates. Clearly a candidate would get the most “bang for their buck” in the biggest cities in each state. I also personally think that removing power from the states and giving more federally isn’t the greatest thing to do.

    All that said, maybe the popular vote makes more sense now. I personally don’t think so, but maybe. But in a time of heightened hysteria and generally low information voters, I’d be very wary of changing it given the extremely low bar for people to vote. Especially given the censorship of conservative viewpoints on many platforms that proclaim free speech but allow anything but (looking at you Facebook, Twitter). I think enacting voter ID, constant requirements for renewing voter eligibility, and better controls on voter machines would have a greater impact than overhauling the Electoral College first.

    Like

  16. 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.

    Like

  17. Look at how presidential candidates actually campaign today inside “battleground” states. Inside a battleground state, every vote is equal today and the winner (of all of the state’s electoral votes) is the candidate receiving the most popular votes. Every battleground state has big cities and rural areas. Thus, if there was any tendency toward de-emphasizing rural areas or over-emphasizing cities, it would be evident today inside the battleground states.
    Ohio alone received almost 30% (73 of 253) of the entire nation’s campaign events in 2012.
    ● The 4 biggest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Ohio have 54% of the state’s population. They are Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo. Had 52% of Ohio’s campaign events.
    ● The 7 medium-sized MSAs have 24% of the state’s population. They are Akron, Canton, Dayton, Lima, Mansfield, Springfield, and Youngstown. Had 23% of Ohio’s campaign events.
    ● The 53 remaining counties (that is, the rural counties lying outside the state’s 11 MSAs) have 22% of the state’s population. Had 25% of Ohio’s campaign events.
    The 4 “battleground” states of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa accounted for over two-thirds of all campaign events in 2012

    In all 4 battleground states, presidential candidates—advised by the nation’s most astute political strategists—hewed very closely to population in allocating campaign events. Candidates campaigned everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas. There is no evidence that they ignored rural areas or favored big cities in an election in which every vote is equal and the winner is the candidate receiving the most popular votes.

    Not only is there no evidence that presidential candidates ignored rural areas or concentrated on big cities, it would have been preposterous for them to do so. There is nothing special about a city vote compared to a rural vote in an election in which every vote is equal. When every vote is equal, every vote is equally important toward winning.

    Like

  18. The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes only became predominant by 1880 — almost a century after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one

    Like

  19. Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

    Policies important to the citizens of the 38 non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    The National Popular Vote system addresses the core threat of parochialism in presidential elections.

    “Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

    Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a “safe” state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a “swing” state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida’s shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states – like water issues in the west.

    The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, and the Trump steel and aluminum tariffs now, from the free-trade party.

    Electoral math drives protectionist trade policies to favor parochial interests in battleground states.

    The root cause of the current trade war is the state-based winner take all system.
    And conversely, Trump’s trade war, with China targeting red states, could hurt the very voters who put him in the White House.

    As trade and other tensions increase with foreign countries, U.S. foes and trading partners can micro-target their efforts against us. They’re certainly going to target major U.S. exports like soybeans and pork and investments, and many of those are in areas like the Farm Belt. The agriculture community is concerned about it. There are other possible easily identified targets as well.
    European Union officials quickly crafted possible retaliatory tariffs against American goods, using strategies using their knowledge of the effects of state winner take all laws for awarding electoral votes.

    The current state-based winner-take-all system allows foreign governments to weaponize protectionism against the battleground states and encourages presidents to start trade wars in order to win parochial voters in a handful of battleground states.

    Facing fierce opposition by Democratic and Republican governors in all coastal states, after the Trump administration announced the opening of offshore oil drilling, only battleground state Florida has been exempted.

    Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).

    Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years has been skewed to battleground states

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38 states and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution—
    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

    Like

  20. Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) and (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. It has occurred in 5 of the nation’s 58 (9%) presidential elections.
    The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 16 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 8 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988.
    537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
    A difference of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
    In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.
    Less than 80,000 votes in 3 states determined the 2016 election, where there was a lead of over 2,8oo,ooo popular votes nationwide.

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

    According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, the president’s narrow victory was due to four counties in Florida and one in Michigan.

    If Hillary Clinton had gotten 93.7% (rather than 88.2%) of the black vote, equaling Obama, she would have tied Trump in the Electoral College. The election would have been thrown into the U.S. House (with each state casting one vote) and the election of the Vice President would be thrown into the U.S. Senate. Congress would decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

    There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.

    Because of state winner-take-all laws, five of our 45 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide.

    Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district or county. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 36 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5).

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: