Skip to main content

As most here know, the national Republican party has now officially endorsed a scheme to make it all but impossible for a Democrat to win the White House, by splitting up the electoral votes of states Obama won. Under the plan, Obama would have lost to Romney last November despite winning 5 million more votes:

But there is one way to stop this. And it takes a LOT of work from you, right now.

To prevent Republicans from rigging the electoral college, we must switch to a national popular vote. And it really can be done: states worth 132 electoral votes have already pledged to allot all of their EVs to the national popular vote winner if other states, adding up to 270 EVs, pledge to do the same. With 138 EVs to go, the electoral college would be overruled by the national popular vote by 2016.

According to the National Popular Vote Project, the following states have passed legislation to make the switch:

• California (55 EVs)
• Illinois (20)
• New Jersey (14)
• Washington (12)
• Massachusetts (11)
• Maryland (10)
• Hawaii (4)
• Vermont (3)
• DC (3)

These additional states now have Democratic governors and legislatures and can now pass an NPV law:

• New York (29 EVs)
• Minnesota (10)
• Colorado (9)
• Connecticut (7)
• Oregon (7)
• West Virginia (5)
• Rhode Island (4)
• Delaware (3)

Adding these states and their 74 EVs to the total would get us to 206 EVs with 64 to go. Rhode Island actually has a Republican-turned-independent governor, but they also have massive, veto-proof Democratic supermajorities in the state house and senate. West Virginia might be tough, given its preference for Republican presidents. And in New York, six Democrats in safe Democratic districts decided to give control of the senate to a Republican-independent coalition, even though Democrats have more senate seats. New Yorkers can debate in the comments the odds an NPV bill could pass there, or the odds the Democratic majority can retake control of the Senate in 2014.

To get the rest of the way to 270 will take ballot initiatives. Fortunately, polling shows Democrats, Republicans and independents all want to abolish the electoral college, by 66-30%, 61-30% and 63-29% margins, respectively. But we can expect Republican voters to change their minds once Fox News and the GOP echo chamber tell them it's an unconstitutional, undemocratic, anti-American liberal scheme. We can also hope Democratic and independent support rises once voters see what Republicans are plotting. Here, then, are states Obama won that have workable initiative processes and aren't listed above:

• Florida (29 EVs)*
• Ohio (18)*
• Michigan (16)*
• Nevada (6)
• Maine (4)

Asterisks denote states with Republican governors and legislators where a constitutional initiative would be necessary to prevent the legislature from overturning public will. Adding these states and their 73 EVs would total 279 EVs, 9 EVs past the goal.

There are also some long-shot states — red states with constitutional initiative processes — that we can fall back on in case some blue states prove intractable. Here they are, in order of narrowest 2012 loss for Obama:

• Arizona (11 EVs) -9% margin
• Missouri (10) -9%
• Mississippi (6) -12%
• Montana (3) -14%
• South Dakota (3) -18%
• North Dakota (3) -20%
• Nebraska (5) -22%
• Arkansas (6) -24%
• Oklahoma (7) -34%

So here's what needs to be done. The quick band-aid fix is to pass winner-take-all constitutional amendments in Florida, Ohio and Michigan to block the Republican strategy. These amendments would simply declare that all of the state's electoral votes must go to the winner. That obvious and simple proposal should be popular enough to win relatively easily, and could possibly foil the national GOP plot all on its own. The next step is to pass NPV initiatives in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and Maine.

We also need to contact the governors, legislatures and state Democratic parties in New York, Minnesota, Colorado, Connecticut, Oregon, West Virginia, Rhode Island and Delaware and not only get them on board but find powerful champions for the cause to make sure NPV laws pass. Alternatively, NPV initiatives can be passed in Colorado and Oregon.

We also need to contact the DNC to get them organizing with the states on NPV. Also, forward this info to your favorite local and national progressive blogs, columnists, TV and radio talk hosts, political leaders and advocacy organizations.

TALKING POINT:

Hi! As you may know, the national Republican party has endorsed a scheme to make it all but impossible for Democrats to win the White House, by splitting up the electoral votes of states Obama won. Under the plan, Obama would have lost to Romney last November despite winning 5 million more votes. ( tinyurl.com/gopscheme ) But there's one way to prevent this from happening, which is to switch from the electoral college to a national popular vote. Several states have already made the switch to a national popular vote. ( tinyurl.com/npvplan ) I'm urging you to please read about and support a switch in order to prevent Republicans from exploiting loopholes in the electoral college. Thank you very much!

TAKE ACTION!

EVERYONE: Contact the DNC, ThinkProgress, Talking Points Memo, and any other influencers you'd like, and urge them to support the National Popular Vote Project.

COLORADO: Contact Governor Hickenlooper, the Colorado Democratic Party, your state senator and representative, and Square State and urge them to support NPV legislation.

CONNECTICUT: Contact Governor Malloy, the Democratic Party of Connecticut, your state senator and representative (scroll down after submitting), and My Left Nutmeg and urge them to support NPV legislation.

DELAWARE: Contact Governor Markell, the Delaware Democratic Party, your state senator and representative, and Delaware Liberal and urge them to support NPV legislation.

FLORIDA: Contact the Florida Democratic Party, FLA Politics, The Seminole Democrat, and Beach Peanuts and urge them to support a winner-take-all amendment and an NPV amendment.

MAINE: Contact the Maine Democratic Party and Dirigo Blue and urge them to support an NPV initiative.

MICHIGAN: Contact the Michigan Democratic Party, Blogging for Michigan, and Michigan Liberal and urge them to support a winner-take-all amendment and an NPV amendment.

MINNESOTA: Contact Governor Dayton, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, your state senator and representative, and the MN Progressive Project and urge them to support NPV legislation.

NEW YORK: Contact Governor Cuomo, the New York State Democratic Committee, your state senator, your state assembly member, and The Albany Project and urge them to support NPV legislation.

NEVADA: Contact the Nevada Democratic Party and Nevada Progressive and urge them to support an NPV initiative.

OHIO: Contact the Ohio Democratic Party, Ohio Daily, and Grumpy Abe and urge them to support a winner-take-all amendment and an NPV amendment.

OREGON: Contact Governor Kitzhaber, the Democratic Party of Oregon, your state senator and representative, and Blue Oregon and urge them to support NPV legislation.

RHODE ISLAND: Contact the Rhode Island Democratic Party, your state senator and representative, and RI Future and urge them to support NPV legislation.

WEST VIRGINIA: Contact Governor Tomblin, the West Virginia Democratic Party, your state senator and delegate, and West Virginia Blue and urge them to support NPV legislation.

UPDATE: I've added Rhode Island (4) to the list of states that can act legislatively. Though they have a Republican-turned-independent governor, Democrats have massive supermajorities in the state house and senate that can override any potential veto.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (452+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, Blazehawkins, sfinx, DCDemocrat, a2nite, One Pissed Off Liberal, Permanent Republican Minority, randomfacts, blueyedace2, rolet, Gowrie Gal, a gilas girl, sgary, Hayate Yagami, TomFromNJ, poopdogcomedy, Eddie L, Mistral Wind, zerelda, Cory Bantic, Molly Weasley, annrose, zzyzx, zooecium, wilderness voice, NJpeach, SanJoseLady, fiddlingnero, temptxan, DRo, camlbacker, karmsy, Fabienne, Trial Lawyer Richard, scotths, Alma, Nulwee, oortdust, markthshark, wasatch, orlbucfan, rb608, Brian82, Dobber, spooks51, 57andFemale, maskling11, mrkvica, northsylvania, Beetwasher, hubcap, MKSinSA, Crabby Abbey, MarciaJ720, xynz, Rogneid, Greasy Grant, thomask, pitbullgirl65, elziax, countwebb, GreyHawk, kingneil, indie17, Joieau, freeport beach PA, arizonablue, hester, Transmission, wader, Senor Unoball, LordMike, RubDMC, millwood, Bob Friend, ratzo, middleagedhousewife, decisivemoment, JBL55, kevin k, No one gets out alive, nightsweat, Son of a Cat, susakinovember, avsp, eeff, RUNDOWN, psnyder, solliges, sawgrass727, chimpy, MrBigDaddy, ScienceMom, JekyllnHyde, coppercelt, Heart n Mind, prettygirlxoxoxo, HoundDog, puakev, AoT, AlwaysDemocrat, manneckdesign, appledown, Odysseus, Chi, praying manatheist, pat of butter in a sea of grits, edsbrooklyn, NBBooks, createpeace, Mother Mags, smileycreek, Mark Mywurtz, humanunit, alwaysquestion, MBishop1, Mr Robert, ferg, 4Freedom, side pocket, OllieGarkey, Byron from Denver, jilikins, va dare, pierre9045, emidesu, MKinTN, BRog, tapestry, Words In Action, scott on the rock, Jaleh, daveinchi, Lily O Lady, bleeding blue, asterkitty, NoMoreLies, MrJayTee, cassandracarolina, doroma, Clytemnestra, Ray Pensador, exNYinTX, LakeSuperior, Alice Venturi, shaharazade, Karl Rover, Preston S, SuWho, offred, peagreen, pileta, Keone Michaels, wa ma, wishingwell, Jim Tietz, TheGreatLeapForward, golem, peteri2, Edmund Xu, HoosierDeb, mofembot, Timmethy, Simplify, Rosaura, SanFernandoValleyMom, PhilJD, UtahLibrul, cybersaur, letsgetreal, NormAl1792, Flint, ethanthej, Shelley99, VirginiaBlue, HiBob, jcrit, splashy, CoolOnion, Wednesday Bizzare, christinebarry, RW, LillithMc, Tod, Carol in San Antonio, MadMs, sea note, WithHoney, Lefty Coaster, profh, subtropolis, DaNang65, rubyclaire, madgranny, WFBMM, Lilith, surfbird007, rambler american, Mentatmark, majcmb1, DeminNewJ, SteveLCo, David PA, Mayfly, Nicci August, Montreal Progressive, poco, smarty jones, dzog, greengemini, banjolele, ridemybike, RebeccaG, Steve In DC, Captain Pants, badlands, WisVoter, james321, mkor7, msgeorgia blue nurse, roses, ChemBob, Anima, science nerd, marlakay, Sun Tzu, JFactor, Al Fondy, Notreadytobenice, Blue Bell Bookworm, keshea01, missLotus, CatFelyne, Rhysling, BlueInRedCincy, jayden, Mac in Maine, hwy70scientist, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Egalitare, DianeNYS, dustbin, gosoxataboy, alguien, lcrp, Dolphin99, tofumagoo, Jeff Y, ARS, defluxion10, Yosef 52, Chaddiwicker, Greek Goddess, high uintas, imfunnytoo, Cecile, Smoh, peachcreek, deepeco, dorkenergy, Kevskos, kefauver, CocoaLove, Wary, JClarkPDX, ladywithafan, BlueSue, twigg, pengiep, amyzex, Tamar, DirkFunk, Shockwave, parakinesis, Bluesee, ask, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, cpresley, Horace Boothroyd III, Ian S, sawolf, SteelerGrrl, pat bunny, ceebee7, Ice Blue, sfbob, AdamR510, IreGyre, cocinero, Miggles, raincrow, Floande, SeaTurtle, dewley notid, dustb, TrueBlueMajority, monkeybrainpolitics, Caneel, m00finsan, leonard145b, Nespolo, Aaa T Tudeattack, TXdem, WesEverest, secret38b, IndependentRadical, sb, Vetwife, Dirtandiron, quill, Check077, rapala, Pat K California, Catherine R, effervescent, Alumbrados, marleycat, maybeeso in michigan, dejavu, MidwestTreeHugger, DeadHead, sreeizzle2012, highacidity, marshstars, historys mysteries, lennysfo, bythesea, petulans, TexDem, chicagobleu, SadieSue, slowbutsure, rasbobbo, Helpless, denise b, BadKitties, Joe Bob, alnep, marina, jadt65, agoldnyc, nirbama, HCKAD, uciguy30, reflectionsv37, 2thanks, Robynhood too, skybluewater, WisJohn, Miss Jones, Meteor Blades, deha, concernedamerican, Bush Bites, Bluehawk, Arlys, yoduuuh do or do not, zhimbo, klompendanser, blueoregon, Bunbun, Gorette, commonmass, ichibon, ATFILLINOIS, Flyswatterbanjo, Glen The Plumber, Free Jazz at High Noon, litigatormom, boran2, ScientistSteve, sap, Dumbo, DuzT, jamess, Larsstephens, harlinchi, Leftcenterlibertarian, bronte17, MarkInSanFran, dwahzon, antirove, Denver11, Debs2, Oaktown Girl, Texnance, sethtriggs, Wildthumb, Liberal Lass, grollen, sricki, buckstop, ontario, DixieDishrag, Nebraskablue, chantedor, john07801, Skennet Boch, Woody, Thunder, Marihilda, ChicDemago, Williston Barrett, NoMoJoe, ruscle, newpioneer, melfunction, ItsaMathJoke, SoonerG, rmx2630, AngieV, fixxit, bluicebank, ChuckInReno, chickeee, Bule Betawi, madhaus, liz dexic, kurt, Jim R, citylights, Pistoche, melo, Troutfishing, YaNevaNo, cherish0708, nice marmot, ExpatGirl, nikilibrarian, samddobermann, Rashaverak, wbr, Eryk, Desert Rose, JamieG from Md, J M F, Dark UltraValia, sidnora, Debbie in ME, TX Freethinker, RagingGurrl, yawnimawke, Stwriley, sunbro, nomandates, GainesT1958, ItsSimpleSimon, TX Unmuzzled, hyperstation, sensetolisten, TheLawnRanger, Lujane
  •  They rigged the House and no one called them on it (170+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blazehawkins, a2nite, One Pissed Off Liberal, rolet, Eddie L, zerelda, fiddlingnero, camlbacker, karmsy, Nulwee, markthshark, judyms9, blueoasis, rb608, RainyDay, 57andFemale, Deep Texan, northsylvania, MarciaJ720, xynz, Rogneid, thomask, musicsleuth, GreyHawk, freeport beach PA, wader, LaurenMonica, RockiesHawk, ratzo, No one gets out alive, susakinovember, Subterranean, psnyder, RUNDOWN, solliges, chimpy, NearlyNormal, blackjackal, VTCC73, puakev, AoT, Aquarius40, pat of butter in a sea of grits, createpeace, Mother Mags, MBishop1, Mr Robert, 4Freedom, OllieGarkey, jilikins, sacrelicious, MKinTN, Words In Action, scott on the rock, Jaleh, bleeding blue, Mimikatz, cassandracarolina, Alice Venturi, 3goldens, SuWho, pileta, Jim Tietz, TheGreatLeapForward, Flint, HeartlandLiberal, LillithMc, WithHoney, subtropolis, bontemps2012, madgranny, rambler american, Montreal Progressive, HugoDog, icemilkcoffee, banjolele, RebeccaG, quaoar, WisVoter, msgeorgia blue nurse, science nerd, Yoshimi, Notreadytobenice, nezzclay, jayden, Jeff Y, defluxion10, slinkerwink, George Hier, drmah, CocoaLove, kefauver, Wary, ladywithafan, d06204, Tamar, Shockwave, SilentBrook, ask, cpresley, Horace Boothroyd III, cocinero, Floande, dewley notid, SeaTurtle, monkeybrainpolitics, m00finsan, leonard145b, Nespolo, Aaa T Tudeattack, Esjaydee, sb, Dirtandiron, Check077, Alumbrados, maybeeso in michigan, MidwestTreeHugger, historys mysteries, SadieSue, Helpless, BadKitties, marina, agoldnyc, FarWestGirl, HCKAD, annan, skybluewater, Miss Jones, concernedamerican, Arlys, blueoregon, Bunbun, zizi, Gorette, Wisdumb, Dumbo, sap, PinHole, doingbusinessas, MarkInSanFran, antirove, Texnance, sethtriggs, Liberal Lass, grollen, DawnN, buckstop, ontario, Nebraskablue, chantedor, Kimba, NoMoJoe, ruscle, SoonerG, Bule Betawi, madhaus, kurt, Newzie, Sharon Wraight, citylights, Troutfishing, Jaimas, cherish0708, nice marmot, OooSillyMe, J M F, Debbie in ME, Stwriley, sunbro, nomandates

    They've also rigged (or are rigging) State races as well.

    Voter apathy and MSM disinterest are two of the biggest barriers you face.  After 2016, when the deal has been done it will be too late.

    Good luck

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:23:11 AM PST

  •  A national poular vote is all fine and dandy (34+ / 0-)

    but, realistically, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.  We must come up with practical, real world, realistic ways of preventing this from happening with the system we have, rather than some pie in the sky plan.

    •  Precisely, NorthBronxDem (20+ / 0-)

      We can work toward something that is a 10 in difficulty, but we have to lay out a practical, effective course of action now. In Ohio, that would be the threat of referendum repeal and we are already organized to do that. People in other states will have to research what their options are.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:08:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We're halfway (29+ / 0-)

      to a national popular vote. Not sure why you think it's so hard.

      It's actually the most realistic reform proposal currently in action, even more realistic than states changing their EV allocation to the winner of CDs, as claimed at the top of this diary.

      •  will you get the other half in less than 2 years? (6+ / 0-)

        if the danger is that the Republican candidate will win in 2016, then the national popular vote is only a solution if it can reasonably be implemented before November 2015.

        •  Why not 2016 before the election? n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  Once the ballot propositions pass (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, ColoTim

            there's a good chance they will be held up in court until a judge rules that they are constitutional.

            •  States Have Exclusive & Plenary Authority (0+ / 0-)

              The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states).

              The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures 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.

              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.

              The bill governs the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes.

              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 by 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. As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

          •  If PA passes this monstrosity, (4+ / 0-)

            and it is very possible, what are the options besides taking it to court?

            Does PA offer a constitutional amendment process?

            We need to plan now.

            The Seminole Democrat
            Confronting the criminally insane who rule our state; as well as the apathy of the vast majority who let them.

            by SemDem on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:20:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Actually we may not have to. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SilentBrook, mightymouse

          Most, if not all, of the states passing the popular vote legislation stipulate that it will go into effect when other states totaling 270 votes pass such legislation. If such referendums are passed in repug controlled states, they should not have this stipulation, that way even if we didn't get 270 votes worth of states to pass it, we could at least limit the damage.

          The other thing we should be doing is heavily targeting Repub governors.

          If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

          by MikePhoenix on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:41:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not how it works (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse, sidnora

            The laws being passed only go into effect once the 270 mark is passed.

            •  Is there soem reason they all have to be (0+ / 0-)

              written that way? Some legal reason?

              If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

              by MikePhoenix on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:55:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  They don't have to be (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jaimas

                But no one is going to pass the bills otherwise.  It would cause all kinds of nonsense if they wrote it so it went into effect immediately.

                •  If the Republicans are really going through with (0+ / 0-)

                  this plan to fix the EC, shouldn't we re-think our strategy in those particular states that are GOP controlled? It would seem to me that the stakes are high enough to do so.

                  If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

                  by MikePhoenix on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:12:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There's more than one way to get this done (0+ / 0-)

                    And NPV has a big majority that cuts across party lines, so in GOP controlled states it's entirely possible to push this as an initiative or ballot measure.

                    The main point is that if this comes into effect then the GOP's antics in some states won't matter.

                    •  And if it doesn't we have Republican presidents (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Jaimas

                      for the foreseeable future and democracy is dead in the US. Seems a lot to risk, to be putting all your eggs in one basket.

                      If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

                      by MikePhoenix on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:37:33 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It's not putting all our eggs (0+ / 0-)

                        in one basket.

                        And I haven't seen a single suggestion from anyone as to another way to deal with what the GOP is doing to steal the election in 2016.  If you'd like to enlighten me as to what the other options are I'd be happy to listen.

                        •  Sigh, I just did give such a suggestion. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          AoT, Jaimas

                          Modify the referendums in the states where the governor and legislature is controlled by Republicans to have their states assign all electors to the popular vote winner regardless of what other states do. That way you minimize the effects of the goopers' shenanigans even if you don't have 270 electors worth of states signing on.

                          If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

                          by MikePhoenix on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:15:58 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I support this (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AoT, sidnora

                            (And I mentioned it in the diary.) But only three of the six states proposing this scheme have an initiative process. And NPV would prevent things like this from ever happening again. NPV would also ensure every voter in every state matters just as much as every other voter. Whereas now, you only really matter if you're in a big swing state like Ohio, Florida or Virginia.

                          •  No way that's going to happen (0+ / 0-)

                            You might as well just pass a referendum enshrining winner take all in the constitution of the state or making it so the legislature can't change it somehow.

                            But the national popular vote will be much more popular across the board.  The solution you're proposing is blatantly partisan and even a number of Dems would balk at it.

              •  Basically, all of them are including that (0+ / 0-)

                stipulation because of the issues you laid out in your comment up thread.

          •  All States Passed SAME Bill (0+ / 0-)

            ALL of the enacting states pass(ed) the SAME National Popular Vote bill, a state law, an interstate compact.

            "This agreement shall take effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form and the enactments by such states have taken effect in each state."

            That's the point.

            States generally enter into interstate compacts in order to obtain some benefit that can only be obtained by cooperative and coordinated action with one or more sister states. In most cases, it would make no sense for a state to agree to the terms of a compact unless certain other states simultaneously agreed to abide by the terms of the compact.

            An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

      •  Kos! (0+ / 0-)

        Thanks for stopping by. I hope you'll help promote this idea in the secret liberal government conspirators' leagues you're a part of.

      •  constitutional convention? (0+ / 0-)

        Don't see that as likely. Many interesting cans of worms would be opened in the event.

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:02:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  What I'm wondering about (6+ / 0-)

      is whether legal teams can be in place in each of the state jurisdictions where this would happen, to challenge the legality of the bill in the event that it's passed. It effectively disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, and I doubt it would stand up to legal scrutiny.

      That said, the timing is important. I could easily see Republican state legislatures holding off on passage of the bill, with the intention of running out the clock: would courts have time to strike down the bill in time for the election?

      Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

      by Dale on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:28:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Disenfranchises how? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, melfunction

        You don't get to vote for the President, as is.  You vote for a slate of electors, for the electoral college.  States get to pick how their EV's are divided up - that's why most are already winner take all, but some split them up.  

         Not to put to fine a point on it, but the system we have now already "disenfranchises" every person in a state who votes for the losing side.  It you're dividing up 10 electoral votes, it doesn't matter if the vote was split 1,000,000 to 1,000,001 - all 10 are going to one candidate.  On the flip side, the winner take all system also "disenfranchises" every surplus voter in states like California and New York, which may give overwhelming popular vote margins to a candidate, but those margins are disregarded entirely.  

        Those votes, in this national popular vote compact, are still being counted beyond the state level, to see who should actually be President.  It's the next best thing to a constitutional amendment to have a real popular vote, as far as I can tell.

        •  It destroys '1-man/1-vote'. It gives voters in Th (4+ / 0-)

          ug districts disproportionate weight against other voters in determining who wins the Pres EVs: more than twice as much in Va. (9-4).  And all by deliberate partisan scheme.

          That is not the same as gerrymandering, where the population of each district remains roughly equal, so the theoretical power/weight of each vote does as well.

          •  How Is "1-Man/1-Vote" Threatened? (0+ / 0-)

            That's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious why you see the Virginia plan in that way.

            Currently, when you vote for president in 48 of the states, you're voting for a slate of electors pledged to the candidate that you pull the lever for.  The Virginia plan simply changes it from a slate of electors to a single elector in the voter's Congressional district.  It's still a "1-Man/1-Vote"/"First past the post" system, just on a lower level.

            The only place I see the Virginia plan as "sketchy" is in its assignment of the 2 "at large" Electors to the candidate who wins the most Congressional districts.  Yet I think that even that would pass Constitutional muster because state legislatures have the latitude to assign their Electors however they chose.

            •  Gerrymandering and selective application (0+ / 0-)

              1: Instead of being based on proportional representation, the plan is based on gerrymandered political districts.

              2: Instead of being applied to all states, the plan is applied to blue states only.

              •  But Only In The Aggregate (0+ / 0-)

                1) Gerrymandering is legal.

                2) Again, the Constitution lets each state decide how they choose their Electors.  What California does or what Texas with their Electors has no bearing on how the Virginia legislature chooses theirs.

                What Virginia wants to do may not be ethical, but it's still legal.

        •  This is absolutely true. EV does effectively (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SilentBrook, StanBlather

          disenfranchise large liberal swaths of the South and West (to say nothing of large Republican swaths of the Northeast and West Coast).

          But at least there's a relatively consistent principle at work throughout the electoral college: for most states (I think Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions), first-past-the-post takes the state. In the Republican-favored scenario, that would cease to be the case consistently across the board, giving Republicans an unfair advantage.

          Personally, I would like to see the popular vote apply nationwide. I'm less sanguine than the diarist about that happening anytime soon, and so the present electoral college system is preferable to an electoral college that is administered radically differently from one state to the next.

          Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

          by Dale on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:09:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  On What Grounds? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, Norm in Chicago, gosoxataboy, ColoTim

        The Constitution says that the states can select their Electors however they choose:

        Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
        If a state wanted to pass a law that said that the state's electors went to the tallest candidate, they could do so and it would be permissible under the Constitution.

        Also, since the Constitution specifies "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," that may rule out the possibility of passing the National Popular Vote compact by referendum -- or at least open it up to legal challenge.

        •  disproportionate racial impact? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, SilentBrook

          I'm not up on the law in this area, but if you could show this change disproportionately discounted the votes of minorities--at least in states subject to the Voter's Rights Act--would that be grounds for a legal challenge?

        •  No! Please stop saying this! (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Steve Canella, zizi, Game Guru

          Someone says this in almost every discussion thread on this Republican coup attempt.  If I see it again I'm going to scream.  The States can pass laws on selecting electors, but those laws are still subject to the constitution's other provisions, including the Equal Protection clause.  This plan destroys one-person one-vote, by purposefully diluting the vote of city voters (I.e.: multiracial people) in favor of  rural voters, which is how the gerrymandering works - pack urban voters into a few 90-10 D districts and then have a bunch of 60-40 R rural districts.  Read Baker v Carr where the one-person, one-vote standard was held to be required by the constitution, and used to overturn another earlier attempt to do the same thing (favoring rural over urban).

          Nothing like this has ever come up since the 14th amendment was deemed incorporated against the states, and I don't think Maine or Nebraska's schemes have ever been subject to constitutional challenge, so don't cite those either.  This is uncharted legal territory and it must be--and will be--Wprld War III in the courts if this bullshit passes.

          •  Nothing like this re: presidential electors (0+ / 0-)

            That is.

          •  The "Genius" of the Virginia Plan... (0+ / 0-)

            ...if you want to call it "genius," is that, on paper, it is a "1-man/1-vote" system.  Virginia is replacing the vote for an entire slate of Presidential electors with a vote for a single Elector who represents the voter's Congressional district.  If Virginia's Congressional districts pass legal muster under the Voting Rights Act for Congressional elections, then why would those same districts suddenly be suspect for Congressional electors?

            The problem, as I see it, is that the harm only comes when taken in the aggregate.  The Commonwealth would argue, if a legal challenge was brought and had standing, that the Constitution gives them latitude to do whatever they want with their Electors, what other states do with their Electors has no bearing on what Virginia does with theirs, and Virginia is well within her rights to assign Electors on the Congressional district instead of the state level.

            What Virginia may do isn't ethical, it certainly contravenes tradition, but there's nothing illegal about it.

            •  It's not (0+ / 0-)

              By design and effect, urban voters (largely minority) are only being given the ability to select 3 electors, with the rural  
              areas getting 10.  It is also a political gerrymander : democrats are only being allowed the opportunity to pick 3 electors, because that's what the gerrymander is designed to do.  Today all voters have an equal opportunity to select 13.  Without the political/racial gerrymander it might be a closer call but as applied this is unconstitutional.  Gross, blatant political disenfranchisement of urban voters.

    •  If you have an idea for how to stop (5+ / 0-)

      states with GOP majorities from passing these laws then I'm all ears.  That seems a hell of a lot more pie in the sky than a national popular vote.

    •  A national populist coup (Cf. Gandhi) (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, Wednesday Bizzare, VirginiaBlue

      Sorry, but the old white guys, particularly the billionaires club for growth, are not going to concede anything.

      I personally do not believe it has to come down to violence, though I think it will if enough people don't stand up make non-violence work.

      A few million people in D.C., indefinitely, supported by millions more from around the country.

      Anything else, the planet fries.

      Simple as that.

      Anyone who says different is uninformed.

      The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

      by Words In Action on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:08:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well that depends, will the president in 2016 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MikePhoenix, SilentBrook

        be willing to declare martial law and just wipe out the protesters?  After all, nonviolence can only work against an opponent with some sense of decency (the fact that Ghandi spent time in prison rather than being summarily executed proves that).

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:37:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nope, it'll be 2000 all over again. Lots of folks (7+ / 0-)

        will 'just want it over'.  Others will say 'you'll get them next time', completely misunderstanding what occurred - a product of deliberate media misinfo.  Most Thugs will just care only that they have the power.  Many will be quietly estatic in thier racist/fascist/theocratic hearts, realizing this is the path to forcing their minority view on the nation.

        And the media, as always since the 80s, will be utterly useless if not actively treasonous.

        •  No it won't be (5+ / 0-)

          I promise you that.

          If the GOP takes the presidency with significant deficit in popular votes people are not going to sit down for it this time.

          •  Did you LIVE thru 2000? I had stunch Ds who said (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            melfunction

            that.  Folks who marched against the Draft wouldn't lift a finger.  By Thanksgiving, no one but a small minority cared in more than an academic way.

            Another word of 'small minority' is easily locked up if they try to exercise their 1st A rights.  By the time the cases came to trial, the coup would be long in place.

            As long as it has even a sembalance of legal-iness (ala truthiness) most Americans will yawn, shrug and ask what you're complaining about.  Same as in every other democracy that died. See, German Enabling Act.

            •  To be fair... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AoT, pashber

              That was a really, really close election. If this had been in effect in Obama v. Romney with a 5M vote discrepancy, there WOULD be riots in the streets, I believe. If it were Hilliary v (x) there would be too. There's something to be said for the first woman/black pres. being denied the office due to an ancient electoral system.

              Bush got by because he was running against a boring white guy, and honestly it was a time when to the layman it didn't seem to make much difference who was president.

              That being said, we need to compete on all fronts to nullify these laws.

            •  Yes, I did. And trust me when I tell you (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jaimas, Eryk

              It will not happen again

              Your generation may have mostly sat it out, but us "kids" know what the hell we're doing and how to make it happen.

              If Obama had won the popular vote by 5 million and lost the EV there would have been a general strike, I guarantee it.  The pathetic refrain from the right about "We surround them" is every bit as desperate as it is wrong.  Who the hell do you think is in the army? And who do you think most supports the Dems.  young people.

              The right is fuck all retarded when it comes to organizing anything outside of election cheating or electioneering and has been for a long time.

              As long as it has even a sembalance of legal-iness (ala truthiness) most Americans will yawn, shrug and ask what you're complaining about.  Same as in every other democracy that died. See, German Enabling Act.
              The presidential election is rather different, especially if the pop vote loser wins the EC and there is a significnt difference.

              I guarantee that this time will be different.  And if it happens I promise you'll see the plans right here on DKos.  Look for my name.

              •  '... in the army? .. young people' (0+ / 0-)

                Yes, and if the public protests attract challenges from a few (they'll be relatively few) "we have the guns" idiots, the cops (or national guard) will tell the idiots to go home or leave their guns at home. And they will.

                I think the major problem is that the EV chicanery coup will be 'legal on paper'.

                Reversing the coup will require something never done before in USA, though not as socially jarring as the Civil War. .

                ♥ Repeal the Capital Gains, Carried Interest & Dividends Entitlements bequeathed to 'more special' taxpayers.

                by in on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 06:42:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Realistically (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SanFernandoValleyMom, AoT

      Almost everyone hates the Electoral College. I'm thinking that getting it so the popular vote does it is easier because of that.

      Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:58:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't understand why the national vote. (0+ / 0-)

      I can understand (and fully support) proportional splitting of state electors, but I don't see the reason to use the national popular vote as the measure for doing so.

    •  equal protection clause...SCOTUS suit (1+ / 0-)

      all votes should be treated equally.  This system of dividing the swing states and leaving others unchanged seems patently in violation of the Constitution.  If not, Congress needs to enact federal guidelines that delineate.

      Oregon: Sure...it's cold. But it's a damp cold.

      by Keith930 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:54:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It would apply if the Constitution didn't describe (0+ / 0-)

        the process.  However, since the Constitution has specifically said the states get to determine how they award Electoral votes, it can't be declared unConstitutional.

        •  That is the crux of the issue, however (0+ / 0-)

          the court could find that the way that VA and others are distributing their votes favor white voters in rural districts, violating one man, one vote. This wouldn't apply to the congressmen themselves because they have to represent a specific area (so technically, there will never be exactly one man, one vote in district cases, although you can get very, very close).

        •  There are other parts of the (0+ / 0-)

          Constitution that can bite the Rs in the ass if applied properly.

          A state can't pass a law stating that only white male property owners can be electors.

          liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

          by RockyMtnLib on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:08:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  National Popular Vote Bill - 49% of the way (0+ / 0-)

      More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.

      In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). 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 in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

      The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

      NationalPopularVote       
      Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  •  Just can't happen (12+ / 0-)

    You're talking about trying to amend the constitution in a grossly partisan environment.  Better to prevent the states in question from changing how they allocate EVs.

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:21:30 AM PST

    •  no constitutional amendment (8+ / 0-)

      I disagree with the thrust of the diary - that NPV is the best way to combat the gerrymandering efforts, but I still support putting the NPV compact in place.  It doesn't require a constitutional amendment.  States are allowed to determine the manner in which electors are awarded.  So it's written to take advantage of that.

      •  Yes it does require an amendment (5+ / 0-)

        Without one, there is no way to ensure all 50 states permanently adopt the same system of allocating their EVs.

        •  it doesn't require all 50 states (9+ / 0-)

          It only requires states with a majority of EVs to pass the legislation.  Then it doesn't matter what the remaining states do.

          True it wouldn't be a permanent guarantee because states would still be free to change the laws, but changing laws takes time.  And crossing that threshold would be a first step in the right direction.

          •  Two words: pipe dream (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Subterranean, Aquarius40

            So you think America is going to enact a system in which voting in certain states is advertised to be meaningless?

            Again, w/o an amendment and fanciful patchwork attempt would not last past one election cycle unless there was an amendment to ensure uniformity and permanence.

            •  Dude (28+ / 0-)

              it's ALREADY HAPPENING. We're halfway there.

              And we already have a system in which 41 states are meaningless in the presidential vote. A National Popular Vote makes EVERY vote meaningful.

              No amendment required, just like Maine and Nebraska didn't need amendments to change their EV allocation systems.

              •  People just don't believe (7+ / 0-)

                that this sort of big change can actually be done.  Of course, they're ignoring the fact that the GOP is trying to make an equivalent change.

                The real question is what we have planned if the election in 2016 gets stolen because NPV doesn't get passed.

              •  I am no defender of the EC (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mmacdDE

                I merely reply to the assured 2016 doom advertised in this diary. Gamesmanship is always present with the elections but gamesmanship does not always win. And going too far in the gamesmanship direction invites only more gamesmanship or reform to counter it.

                Indeed, this sort of fiddling about might be just the sort of thing to illustrate to The Average Voter just why the EC is a crock of crap.

                If I could do away with the EC I would. But without an amendment, there is no way to keep all 50 states on the same allocation system. It'd probably be easier to get the amendment! That takes only 38 state legislatures not all 50 as the patchwork concept requires.

                •  You're misunderstanding what this would do. (5+ / 0-)

                  If states with EVs totaling 270 adopt the NPV compact, then we've effectively abolished the Electoral College and enacted a national popular vote, like you say you'd support. The only actual change is in how the winner is decided--right now states award EVs based on the winner of the STATE's popular vote, which gives certain states disproportionate power to decide the election; with the NPV plan, EVs would be awarded based on the entire COUNTRY's popular vote, and every person's vote would be treated equally.

                  "In an individual, selfishness uglifies the soul; for the human species, selfishness is extinction." -Cloud Atlas, by David Mitchell

                  by rigcath on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:58:51 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That solution is unstable though (0+ / 0-)

                    Arrange half the states under one system and half under another and watch the fights break out. You thought the 2010 Tea Party was something? Hoo boy!

                    I just don't think this half-measure is tenable. If half the nation has zero impact on the election would the Americans living there think it is a fair and just system? No. Would it really be a democratic system even?

                    So why work towards something that will eitehr fly apart or cause as much problem as the status quo?

                    •  The other half doesn't have a choice (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Quicklund, melfunction

                      They are out voted.  That's just how it works.

                      And they don't have zero impact.  They take part in the popular vote therefore they have a vote for the presidency.

                      •  I doubt many will be convinced by this approach (0+ / 0-)

                        Don't like it? Too bad. Do something about it!

                        Which they will. That is the point. The voters who feel disenfranchised by this system would most certainly work relentlessly to end it.

                        I find this proposal to be inherently unstable. It would fly apart immediately were it possible to create it. And if there was enough public will to create it, there would probably be enough public will to go right to the genuine remedy, an amendment.

                        •  And the other option (0+ / 0-)

                          when the GOP is trying to steal the election using related legislation?

                          This has the benefit of being legitimized by a majority vote nationally.  That's much more than the current scheme regularly has.

                          •  Both groups tend to be the same group (0+ / 0-)

                            (or allied groups).

                            And Quicklund is correct in that this group will feel bitter loss of their long-held "overly-enfranchised" entitlement to greater than average voting power.

                            ♥ Repeal the Capital Gains, Carried Interest & Dividends Entitlements bequeathed to 'more special' taxpayers.

                            by in on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 02:34:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  What you keep missing over and over (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rigcath

                      1) It doesn't take all 50 states to get this through

                      2) It's also untrue that "half the nation has zero impact." If this goes through, every single vote will count: the winner of the popular vote will be President.

                      What you might not be grasping is, states agreeing to this are agreeing to take in account the vote of every single American. They will not the popular vote OF THE NATION not just their state, and award their EV's to the popular vote winner.

                      Thus whomever the ENTIRE NATION votes for in a majority, willl be President

                      Self-described political "centrists" believe the best policy is halfway between right and wrong. — @RBReich via web

                      by BentLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:01:04 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  The Whole Country Would be Politically Relevant (0+ / 0-)

                      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 needed 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.  The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

                •  if you could do away with the EC (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ScottyUrb, melfunction

                  why would you not support the NPV?  It's the same end goal.  If you read the language of the NPV legislation maybe it will help you to understand how it works.

                  I stated above I don't agree this is a good approach to combat the GOP game rigging for 2016, but I still support this effort and in fact lobbied for it to pass in my state.  It was a great day when the bill was signed into law.  One step closer to something that many say can never happen.  I've heard that so many times in my life for things that HAVE come to happen.

                  If this eventually came into force, it might put some traction behind a constitutional amendment which IMHO would ultimately be the best outcome.

                  •  It's easier to pass NPV than it is to do away with (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MikePhoenix, pashber

                    the EC.  Getting rid of the EC would take a constitutional amendment and there isn't a way forward on that right now.  If we get NPV through the states then it's entirely possible it could lead to a constitutional amendment later, but there's no way we can get one before 2016.

                    •  No way either happens by 2016. (0+ / 0-)

                      There were at least six decades of national debate about health care before even  the partial-measure ACA was able to pass. There's been zero national debate on this sort of thing.

                      •  It's already half-way there (0+ / 0-)

                        And people have been talking about a popular vote for years and years.  This is totally doable.

                        •  It's not been an issue in a single election (0+ / 0-)

                          Not one. It doesn't matter what I jaw about to be neighbor over the fence. Until changing the way we elect Presidents is a viable issue in Presidential elections, then it's not been "discussed".

                          And if said topic ever gets that much traction, then the issue has enough traction to go for the Amendment route.

                          •  False (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AoT
                            And if said topic ever gets that much traction, then the issue has enough traction to go for the Amendment route.
                            Diarist's method only requires enough states to make up a simple majority of EV votes. Your Constitutional approach would take WAY MORE than that.

                            You simply haven't thought this through, or you are purposely arguing disingenuously. Can't figure out which.

                            Self-described political "centrists" believe the best policy is halfway between right and wrong. — @RBReich via web

                            by BentLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:10:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And as I explained elsewhere (0+ / 0-)

                            I am quite certain that such a system would fly to pieces due to the perceived disenfranchisement such a half-half-measure would cause.

                            Oh damn! There I went changing the words I typed  in response to comments posted to me. Damn! The boys at Leavenworth will throw me into solitary for that.

                      •  National Popular Vote - 49% of the Way (0+ / 0-)

                        More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.

                        In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). 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 in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

                        The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

                        NationalPopularVote      
                        Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

                  •  It is untenable unstable & seems anti-democratic (0+ / 0-)
                    •  How does electing the person with (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BentLiberal

                      the most votes seem undemocratic?

                      •  I explained how (0+ / 0-)

                        Americans vote to tell their state which candidate to support in the EC. Under this system the EC would still exist. The EC votes would elect the President, individual votes would not. So under this system many states would ignore what THEIR voters told them to do, and would obey the wishes of non-residents instead.

                        So long as the EC exists, this half measure would probably cause more problems than the existing system.

                        Junk the EC, there's the solution.

                        •  You keep switching arguments (0+ / 0-)

                          You give a reason why you don't like the diarist's plan, and when it's refuted you just move to the next reason.

                          Can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse because you don't want a national popular vote, or if you're missing the forest for the trees.

                          What I can see though is that you are not listening to the commenters that are speaking to you. And for that reason, I realize that it's useless to engage you further. Good day.

                          Self-described political "centrists" believe the best policy is halfway between right and wrong. — @RBReich via web

                          by BentLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:06:13 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  No, they would do *exactly* what their (0+ / 0-)

                          voters told them to do, which is to go with the person who won the most votes nationally.

                          •  Michigan people do not live in AL (0+ / 0-)

                            I am sorry I do not think this half measure will work. Get rid of the EC if you want to get rid of the EC.

                          •  You're being purposely obtuse now (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            melfunction

                            If people vote this in then it means they want to honor the popular vote.  You can pretend like it means something different, but no one really likes the EC.  National Popular Vote consistently polls at over 60% and has for decades.  The politicians don't fucking talk about it because why would they?  This forces the issue.

                            Instead you advise that we just let the GOP take the whitehouse for at least four years, probably 8.

                          •  Sorry you don't get off that easy (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AoT

                            My point might be sliding past you unrecognized, but I have stuck to my point.

                            1) A patchwork system that does not apply to the whole nation is inherently unstable. It will not last, because irate  voters will make sure it does not last.

                            2) A workaround system that IS adopted by all 50 states would mean that the simple answer - amendment - would have enough support to pass. It is easier to get 38 states to agree than 50.

                            3) If you want to get rid of the EC, get rid of the EC.

                            That is not obtuse, that is me having a different analysis than yours, and me having more faith in my analysis than in contrasting opinon.

                          •  Thank you for the explanation (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Quicklund

                            I disagree with your first point.  I trust people to remember for a couple of years what they voted for and why they voted for it.  I can see why you think it would be a problem though.

                          •  No worries (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AoT

                            It's a complex proposal and the discussion was spread over several messages - each with time gaps between post and reply. It was time for a summary I guess.

                            I was thinking of this a bit last night and I think a better way to describe it is like this.  

                            Let's say the 1o-11 most populous states agree to give all their EC to the winner of the pop vote. This means the ECs for the other ~40 states do not matter. The obvious result is to negate the EC.

                            But.

                            The EC is rooted in the Constitution itself, and the Constitution already has a mechanism to amend itself. That process requires 38 states out of 50. This workaround would be brought about by the will of only 10 states.

                            This is likely to be just as irritating to critics of that plan, as the GOP scheme discussed here is irritating to you and me. It gives a huge emotional energy to the issue, which is why I say the idea is unstable. Opponents would see to that.

                            So let's add more and more less populous states instead of just the most populous. The more you go along that path the more stable the change becomes. But then we hit my 2nd point. If it's possible to get 26 states to buy in on this, then it is probably possible just to go for the amendment.

                            Finally the amendment route is lasting. The workaround approach would last only until one state legislature chose to pass a bill.

                            Thanks for the conversation. I know I indulge in myself in zingers too much but Popeye was born to eat spinach.

                          •  Maine & Nebraska Don't Use State Winner-Take-All (0+ / 0-)

                            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 constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.  Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet).  Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

                            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, the people had no vote for President in most states, 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 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

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

                            As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

                            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.

                          •  73% of Michigan Voters Support National Pop Vote (0+ / 0-)

                            A survey of Michigan voters showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
                            Support was 73% among independents, 78% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.
                            By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 67% among 30-45 year olds, 74% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.
                            By gender, support was 86% among women and 59% among men.

                            NationalPopularVote

                        •  Candidate with Most Votes In Country (0+ / 0-)

                          Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate.  Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

                          In state polls of voters each with a second  question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

                          To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

                          To have the candidate with the most popular votes in the country guaranteed the presidency, only needs states with 138 more electoral college votes to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

                          NationalPopularVote

              •  stand corrected on the convention comment nt (0+ / 0-)

                If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

                by jgnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:02:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  You're missing the point... (11+ / 0-)

              Right NOW votes in many states are meaningless. I live in Oregon - it's been blue forever.

              With the NPV, EVERY vote will matter. It's a NATIONAL popular vote. The reality is exactly the opposite of what you stated.

              Under the NPV system, where the actual Electoral Votes come from is meaningless. The Electoral College would become irrelevant.

              Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

              by walk2live on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:36:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  This only changes which votes are ignored (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                guyeda, Norm in Chicago

                I think that changing the electoral college because "our team" is getting screwed in the short run is a seriously bad idea.

                Currently people that live in states with overwhelming majorities for one side or the other are not really worth courting.  If we change this to be based on a national popular vote what will happen is that all of the people who live in sparsely populated areas (which will be more expensive to campaign in on a per-voter basis) will not matter, as all of the advertising will take place on the coasts and the few large cities in the middle, like Chicago and Houston. So, instead of not shifting policy to sway the votes of Oregonians we will stop shifting policy to sway the votes of people in rural areas.

                I think it is precisely this sort of thing that having an electoral college (and a Senate with wildly different levels of representation) was designed to counter. By having the people in the small states get equal votes in certain areas we ensure that policy is more likely to favor all citizens rather than just the ones in urban areas.

                Of course, we could all be smarter than Jefferson et al., but I doubt it.

                •  really? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Calouste, JFactor, MikePhoenix
                  Of course, we could all be smarter than Jefferson et al., but I doubt it.
                  The slaveholders that believed that senators and EC votes should be apportioned by the state, not by popular votes?  Those guys?

                  They did the best with what they had.  Don't give them magic unicorn sparkle powers.

                  Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

                  by lostboyjim on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:12:07 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, those guys (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Norm in Chicago

                    I'm not giving them magic unicorn sparkle powers, but I have read the occasional book and the strong concensus is that while they were not perfect we were fortunate to have such a solid set of Founding Fathers.

                    It's also a dubious argument to say "Well, they were slaveholders, so they were obviously wrong about everything." I'm as much against slavery as the next guy and do not understand why they were unable to put moral issues before financial ones, but that doesn't change my opinion of the overall merits of the Constitution.

                    I think that they believed Senators and EC votes should be apportioned on a per-state basis, and that House votes on a per-person basis, as a way to balance competing goals of helping the majority be heard without being able to completely trample on the rights of the minority.

                    •  And they also thought the Senators (0+ / 0-)

                      should be appointed by the state legislators, but we changed that.  Ditto with black people being 3/5 of a person.

                      They gave us a way to fix the things they did wrong, we should use it.

                      •  Agree that they were not perfect (0+ / 0-)

                        I am not suggesting that we should never amend the Constitution, as there are clearly changes that have been made to the original text that virtually everybody agrees with now. However, just because we CAN make a change doesn't mean that a particular one is a good idea.

                        I'm open to discussion about how NPV would improve the overall state of representation in the country compared to the current balance of population vs. regions we have. The original diary didn't really address that question but merely focused on the fact that Democratic candidates would be adversely affected by the specific changes being proposed. That fact may be an excellent reason to oppose the Republican changes but it's not a good reason to completely change the system in another way in an attempt to win the current fight.

                    •  Actually, it was more of a rural/urban thing, (0+ / 0-)

                      with the EC and Senate-election-by-State-Lege. a 'necessary compromise' without which the small, rural state would not have signed onto the Constitution.

                      IOW, it was just like counting slaves as 3/5th of a person, and just as immoral and odious.

                      •  WTF? (0+ / 0-)

                        How is balancing rural/urban concerns even remotely comparable to counting slaves as 60% human??? I'm hoping you misstated your view.

                        •  Yes, I mean it. In this day and age, it is at bes (0+ / 0-)

                          t an anarchorism, at worst immoral.  One person/1 vote means just that.  You either believe in equal rights, majority rule and democracy or you believe you are superior to someone else.  Being 'rural' in no way makes you better or or more importance than uban, suburban or exurban.  

                          The idea that rural folks are entitled to more 'protection' or whatever - it really just means power - than others is immoral and odious.

                          All people are created equal means all people are created equal.  None counts more than any other, so those who choose to congregate together in large communities natural weild more common power than those who reject doing so.

                          It's just math.

                          I'm sorry if rural folks don't want to make the trade-off of losing power by living amongst tiny communities, but tough.  Ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  You want bucolic rusticness, you pay for it with less political power.  No one is forcing you to live there.

                          Besides, the Senate's inherently undemocratic structure of 2 per state is sufficient protection for rural populations.  

                          And btw, I say this someone who happily grew up in a town of less than 30K in rural - and ranching and farming - America.  Loved it, but was cleared eyed about the cost.

                    •  I always thought the EC's purpose was to force the (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AmericanAnt

                      candidates to speak to the interests of each of the states, not just the population centers.   With a pure NPV, a candidate would only need to appeal to urban voters, where the majority of the population lives, in order to win the vote.

                      This was a rural state's interest issue.  In an NPV situation, no longer would you have interesting swing states like Iowa or New Hampshire.    Would anyone care about Montana ever again?  The Dakotas?  Alaska, even?

                      So I don't know how I feel about the NPV, other than it sounds like something for which I'd need a vaccine.

                      •  My point as well (0+ / 0-)

                        Apparently Chris Morgan thinks it's immoral and odious, but I beg to differ.

                      •  80% of US Not Politically Relevant Now (0+ / 0-)

                        With National Popular Vote, when every vote counts 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.

                        Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states.  80% of states and voters are ignored.

                        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 does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

                        Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%.

                        In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.  Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) -   got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states.  In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

                        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).

                        Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since 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. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states 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%.

                        Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine 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 with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

                      •  Only 15% of US in Top 50 Cities (0+ / 0-)

                        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 15% 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.

                        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.

                        With National Popular Vote, when every vote 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.

                        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.

                        With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically.  There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state.  When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win.  A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

                        Candidates would need 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 waitress mom voters in Ohio.

                        With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.  Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.

                    •  We were lucky mostly by circumstance. (0+ / 0-)

                      Under more common founding ('revolution' etc) circumstances, the US would have been a theocracy, etc. And remember that the FF were the colonial ruling class.

                      ♥ Repeal the Capital Gains, Carried Interest & Dividends Entitlements bequeathed to 'more special' taxpayers.

                      by in on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 02:21:20 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Not ignored if 'overwhemling majority'. What do y (0+ / 0-)

                  ou think they want to be persuaded to be even more 'overwhelming'?  If they are 'ignored', its bc they choose to be .  

                  You might as well say voters are 'ignored' if any basic campaign tactic, like targeted mailers, are used.

                •  It's not perfect, but it's WAY better... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AoT, gosoxataboy

                  In 2012, Obama & Romney didn't do one serious campaign stop west of Iowa. You can't tell me that's a better system.

                  I'd much rather have serious campaigning in densely-populated areas, as most rural media markets pick-up on their nearest urban center anyway. People who live in rural areas are used to this kind of thing - it comes with the territory. If they want to go see a candidate, it's a lot easier to drive 4 hours to the nearest urban center, than fly across the country.

                  In addition, on a per-capita basis, it can be effective to target rural voters. Via the internet & phone, it doesn't matter where you're located. Media is also cheaper in small markets. It may be worth a candidate to do an old-fashioned 'whistle-stop' tour - if a candidate visits a 50K population city in a state near you, people in other 50K population cities nearby sympathize with that, and pay attention.

                  Then, there are truly national media, which target everyone. Campaigns would be more likely to use those channels.

                  The main thing though, is getting candidates to address issues that affect localities across the entire country, not just "Ohio and Florida".

                  Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

                  by walk2live on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:16:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Electoral College HURTS small states (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AoT

                  Small states mean jack in the electoral college. The important states are Ohio, Florida and Virginia: big states with split electorates.

                  Under NPV, a vote up for grabs in New Pimple, Wyoming will be just as valuable as a vote up for grabs in San Francisco.

                •  I really have to chuckle (0+ / 0-)

                  when I read a phrase like "all of the people in sparsely populated areas."  That is all.

            •  Not true (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MPociask, AoT

              The votes in the states that continue to allocate their electoral college votes based on just the voting in their own state would still contribute to the total EC vote count.  Their votes aren't meaningless.

              I agree that an amendment is best and it should be worked towards but that's no reason not to take advantage of the proposal outlined here.

              [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

              by rabel on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:40:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  80% of US Politically Irrelevant Now (0+ / 0-)

              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), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% 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 a 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. 10 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election.  After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election. None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual. About 80% of the country was ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. It was 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. 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.

              80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

              The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

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

              During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win.  They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected.  Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

              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 comprehensive immigration reform, water issues in the west, and Pacific Rim trade issues.

               “Maybe it is just a coincidence that most of the battleground states decided by razor-thin margins in 2008 have been blessed with a No Child Left Behind exemption. “ - Wall Street Journal

              As of June 7, 2012 “Six current heavily traveled Cabinet members, have made more than 85 trips this year to electoral battlegrounds such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a POLITICO review of public speeches and news clippings. Those swing-state visits represent roughly half of all travel for those six Cabinet officials this year.”

          •  but that's exactly the part that concerns me (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            StanBlather

            The states on this list are blue states. If these states switch to awarding their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, then we're giving away our built in electoral college advantage.

            Do you really want the electoral votes of blue states to be awarded based upon how big a margin the Republican candidate can rack up in Texas and other wingnut stronghold states?

            I sure don't.

            •  It won't be about states anymore. (0+ / 0-)

              It won't matter who wins what state, that whole way of thinking will be over. It will instead entirely be about who can get the most VOTES, not the most states or the most districts. And Democrats won the most votes in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. Plus 2004, the only time the GOP won, would have been a lot different if Democrats had had an incentive to run up the vote totals in CA, NY, IL, NJ, MA, etc.

    •  No Constitutional Amendment required (13+ / 0-)

      it's an interstate compact, and states are allowed to allocate their EVs however they see fit.

      •  However states can't willy nilly make up their (0+ / 0-)

        own rules if it is discriminatory.  For example, a state can't say we will only give electoral votes to white people who voted only.  That plan would be challenged in a court of law.

        Thus many of these plans where electoral votes would disenfranchise minority voters would be challenged.

        President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

        by Drdemocrat on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:01:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Every Vote, Everywhere, Every Election Would Count (0+ / 0-)

      The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing to amend the Constitution.

      The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

      The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures 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.

      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 needed 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.  The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular 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.

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

       With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps.  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 a 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.

      When and where voters matter, then so are the issues they care about most.

  •  Huh? (13+ / 0-)

    You expect GOP-controlled states like OH, MI & FL to pass winner-takes-all amendments? That's like expecting the campaign finance corrupted congress to pass tough campaign finance laws. Your approach makes no sense.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:25:14 AM PST

    •  My thoughts exactly. (8+ / 0-)

      Ohio is so heavily gerrymandered that despite leaning blue, it will be ruled by Republicans for the foreseeable future.  If the GOP has a plan to steal the White House, would they just decide to play nice instead?

      Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

      by Boundegar on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:46:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We have always depended on the kindness (11+ / 0-)

        of sociopaths...

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:47:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I expect Ohio to pass a law in 2015 saying that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT

        the state's electoral votes will go to the Republic presidential candidate for the 2016 election bypassing the whole popular vote completely.  (equal protection grounds would probably prevent them from doing that for more than a single election)

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:41:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Throw The Bums Out

          I guess that would be constitutional.  It does say the states can select the electors any way they want.  They could make being a registered Republican a requirement.  
          I can see why in 1789 it made sense to have indirect election, but in 2012, it seems to offer no advantage at all, except that the ev numbers continue the small-state advantage built into the Senate.

           If keeping the count is desirable, then I think a const. amendment should just allocate the state's  EV's by party, thus putting the concept of party into the constitution.  It is a fact of life.  Then require a majority of EVs to win, and let the electoral college resolve the election.  Could produce some interesting 3rd party coalitions.  

          I'm still mad about Nixon.

          by J Orygun on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:57:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  No it can be changed in 2020 when redistricting (0+ / 0-)

        happens folks.  

        Plus I would think that the people of a state can vote that in the future that it will be taken out of the hands of the state legislatures and instead will be determined by the courts as it was done by vote in California and Florida.

        President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

        by Drdemocrat on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:03:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  yeah it's... (0+ / 0-)

      almost entirely blue states that have been stupid enough to sign off on this plan so far...

      "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

      by JackND on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:48:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why stupid. (11+ / 0-)

        Under winner takes all you are nearly there anyway.  It is only an advantage/disadvantage if you have a party that does not want to adjust it's platform to attract voters.  So if you approve moving from a system where you should rarely have a President lose an election but win the popular vote to one where you will never have a President lose an election but win the popular vote, how is that stupid.  Oh and a move that has the backing of the majority of people as well regardless of party affiliation.  

        So I don't get how it is stupid to support something that is supported by the majority of voters and removes what is generally seen as a bad thing.

        Now I do get why Reps don't want it.  It would mean having to consider what they stand for and whether they want to change to be viable.  That's work.

        "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

        by newfie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:09:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Stupid enough? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MBishop1

        explain why NPV is stupid?

        Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

        by walk2live on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:32:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  MI can amend (4+ / 0-)

      by ballot initiative.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:25:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can we please not have six proposals (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happy camper

        this time around and just give voters in MI one thing to focus on and one thing for the news to harp on.....

        Having said that, I do think that we, like Wisconsin, will be forced to make any change in that way, and then watch our "thoughtful" governor and Republican controlled legislature undo whatever the people decided.  But it does give pause for thought to those republicans who voted one way only to see their own party disrespect their wishes.

        •  We wouldn't need (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alwaysquestion

          to do everything by ballot proposal and constitutional amendment if the legislature would do their jobs. Case in point: Proposal 6, the bridge thing. If the state had dealt with the need for a new international crossing in a timely and rational fashion, Matty Moroun would have been irrelevant.

          We need a new constitution in MI. Get rid of term limits, set up an independent board to draw district lines, and make the legislature part time--at the same time eliminating the lame duck session. Progressive marginal tax rates would be nice too, and no right to freeload laws allowed.

          Just for starters.

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:13:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You don't need the GOP's permission (0+ / 0-)

      "You expect GOP-controlled states like OH, MI & FL to pass winner-takes-all amendments?"

      You don't need the GOP's permission. They vote Democratic, and 60%+ of all D's, R's and I's support NPV. Just hold a public constitutional initiative.

      And if you're thinking FL and OH don't want to lose importance, they won't. They're big, populous states with plenty of D's, R's and I's. Everyone will be swarming FL and OH to get votes.

      Even so, the quick fix of just a winner-take-all amendment, without NPV, would go a long way.

    •  On the flip side (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT

      I would be willing to bet that if this were on the ballot in MT that it would sail through. I'm not sure why the diarist assumes MT is a Republican stronghold.

      Small varmints, if you will.

      by aztecraingod on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:01:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  NPV Needs States with 138 More Electoral Votes (0+ / 0-)

      The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

      NationalPopularVote       
      Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  •  The Museum of Bad Diary Titles (9+ / 0-)

    thanks you for your submission.

    There's sufficient substance here without going Chicken Little on us. If it's cheap mojo you're after might I suggest animal videos?

    One area you are failing to address: why our party is refusing to challenge according to the Dean Strategy, and what is going on with minority recruitment. The 2012 election was about demographic shifts. Even gerrymandering cannot guarantee the votes of aging white folks over time. Come up with candidates who resonate and a lot of this bullshit can be overcome.

    •  I dunno. (4+ / 0-)

      It's a tad chicken little, but there's a degree of truth to it: we've seen the tea party wings of several swing states quite unabashed about seizing their supposed mandate, to pass stuff like massive austerity measures, budget cuts, emergency financial legislation, and so forth. Here in Maine, Paul LePage only landed 30% of the vote, but that's been enough to allow him to ram through some pretty draconian stuff (and to subject the state's progressive constituencies to a foul-mouthed battery of abuse).

      So I wouldn't put it past some of these Republican state administrations to run roughshod over the electoral college system. They certainly don't experience anything in the way of scruples.

      Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

      by Dale on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:41:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  While I support the (19+ / 0-)

    national popular vote, pursuing it now is probably the least efficacious way to stop the Republicans' attempt to alter the allocation of EVs, because it's such a long process. In the meantime, stopping them directly on a state-by-state basis is what's necessary.

    Grew a mustache and a mullet / Got a job at Chick-Fil-A

    by cardinal on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:26:33 AM PST

    •  How? I keep seeing people say that (6+ / 0-)

      we should stop them state by state, but they never give a how.  We can't win on gumption alone when the GOP has been planning for this for a while.  They suppress the vote and then gerrymander the districts.  There's no magical way to change that state by state, the NPV is much more doable.

    •  NPV IS a State-by-State Process (0+ / 0-)

      The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states).

      More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.

      In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). 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 in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

      The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

      NationalPopularVote      
      Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  •  I don't see popular vote happening (6+ / 0-)

    in time. But there should be a controlled media blitz coming from the Democratic Party.

    Life is good. Injustice? Not so much.

    by westyny on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:38:44 AM PST

  •  Short term gains and long term losses (6+ / 0-)

    The GOP may, in the short term, realize gains from suppressing the vote.  Demographics will eventually overcome them and they'll be relegated to the minority party status they deserve.

    The real question is: how much damage will they do in the interim?  Not only will they frustrate and obstruct the Progressive Agenda, they may do far worse things.  If they do take the Whitehouse, they could get us into more wars, further ruin the environment, etc.

    •  They can do some damage (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RUNDOWN, emidesu, Miss Jones

      but no surprise that the Republicans are latching onto a short-sighted strategy - frankly, I don't think they care beyond their own personal cases.  So enough of them figure that they can make it last while they are in the game, after that they don't really care what happens.

      That is also the general policy of many corporations.

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:13:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Eventually? I'm not sure about that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jabney

      Once they get into power they will use gerrymandering and voter suppression to stay in power. And you can't do much about that short of rioting if they don't allow you to vote or make your vote meaningless. Next time the GOP has the President and controls Congress, they will roll back the Voting Rights Act, they are already trying quite hard now. They will attack the 14 Amendment. They're just not into this whole "democracy" thing.

      Repeal the 2nd amendment.

      by Calouste on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:23:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not 'suppressing the vote'; destroying Democracy. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jabney, Steve Canella, zizi

      Suppressing the vote is making it more difficult for individual voters to have their individual votes counted, ala discouraging thru long lines, 'DWI' black-precinct roadblocks (Fla.2000), etc.  It may, if of sufficient magnitude, also mean undermining democracy.  However, it is an evil in and of itself, regardless of whether it does so.

      This Thug rigging of the EC is altogether different.  It literally guarantees that the EVs will not be allocated democratically or by popular majority.  It does so by making votes of one party's members count substantially more than the others, in Va. Thug votes have twice the worth of others.  It makes a mockery of 'all [people] created equal', enshring Animal Farm's maxim instead that some are more equal that others.  

      And all by that party cheating through a system of partisan apartied.  

      The Soviet commissars would be proud of thier US moles... er, Thug proteges.

  •  This compact is not an amendment (13+ / 0-)

    to the constitution. It is a temporary expedient. As such it has no permanency. A state law passed to abide by its provisions can be repealed by the next legislature if control shifts to the Republicans. As long as the electoral college is the constitutional mechanism, there will be a running political battle to control the way it works in practice.

    •  This is a very important point. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AmericanAnt

      And likely makes the legislative approach a non-starter for all the uncertainty it would engender.  It's a virtual guarantee that in the first election cycle under that system there will be a lean-D state with a GOP legislature among that list of states with the compact - and that state would repeal their participation before breakfast.  All the NPV infrastructure would go to waste, and tactics would have to pivot 180.  Or if they were being especially nefarious, they could repeal the law days before the election, effectively crotch-punching any chance of national Dem victory.

      I worry also about vote-rigging in any NPV system.  You can't afford to poll and monitor every single precinct - it wouldn't be hard for the GOP to learn where Dems aren't tracking and run up the margins in those areas.

      You couldn't load a pistol with dormitive virtue and shoot it into a breakfast-roll - CS Peirce

      by Mr Raymond Luxury Yacht on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:42:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is very hard to overturn (0+ / 0-)

      In states where it's passed legislatively, they have full Democratic control: Democratic houses, senates AND governors. All three would have to turn Republican before NPV can be overturned, else just one Democratic chamber or governor could block it.

      And constitutional amendments can't be overturned by the legislature alone.

    •  3% of US Pop Could Stop Amendment (0+ / 0-)

      To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

      To have the candidate with the most popular votes in the country guaranteed the presidency, only needs states with 138 more electoral college votes to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

      NationalPopularVote

  •  can the GOP pull this off in enough (4+ / 0-)

    states to make a difference? I would suspect they would meet opposition within many states even among Republicans because it would appear just too blatant.

    •  That is why they backed off in PA (5+ / 0-)

      so they can wait until fewer people are paying attention.  They need 6 States (I believe) and those are States that have GOP legislatures and GOP Governors.  If they can get it through in PA then they can keep it up for a while - or as long as they can maintain control over the legislature.  The ability to do that is aided by the extreme gerrymandering that was done - with BTW the aid of one prominent Dem who was thrown a few bones for his efforts.

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:16:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  think this will get attention anytime (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        newfie, wishingwell, StanBlather
        That is why they backed off in PA so they can wait until fewer people are paying attention.
        Not sure such a time would exist. I think that this would get peoples attentions regardless of when it was passed. Clearly the agenda is to attempt to setup a situation where the winner of the popular vote does not win the election; I think that will be obvious to everyone.
        They need 6 States (I believe) and those are States that have GOP legislatures and GOP Governors.  
        What are the 6 states? MI, OH, PA, WI, VA, FL? Florida could backfire for them as it is often close. There are citizens vetos in MI and OH (though they may be able to avoid that in MI by attaching an appropriation).

        At any rate, hopefully gives the democratic gubernatorial candidates in the midterms something to run on especially if they decide to pass it now to avoid the potential loss of those offices.

        •  Right. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StanBlather, scotths

          Not sure how much attention it gets.  I'm doing my part - and I think that our efforts need to focus on the States to prevent the change.  I have alerted a number of folks.  Non were aware.  It also is up to the Dem pols in PA and other States to make sure it gets attention.

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:30:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hard to call these "blue" states... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, mightymouse

          They voted for Obama, but the people of Michigan, Ohio and Florida appear to love, love, love them some Republicans in state office.  Oh how the Republicans must be doing such wonderful, popular things in these states! Because the people in these states just can't elect enough of them!  See here.  Republicans enjoy a better than 2-1 advantage in each state's senate and a fairly huge advantage in the lower house in Ohio and Florida (closer in Michigan).  I find it very hard to say that anything the completely Republican-controlled governments of these states might pass doesn't have the overwhelming support of the people.

          You want to fix gerrymandering (or, better yet, do it the right way), expand the franchise, make abortion more widely available, overturn vaginal probe and right-to-work laws, etc.?  Vote out Republicans from your state government like we have done here in Illinois.

          •  You are way off base (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            scotths

            Speaking for Michigan, the gerrymandering began way back when moderate Republicans actually existed. MI had a long history of electing them. Once the gerrymandering is in place, good luck undoing it.

            There are several states where the majority of state legislature votes go for Dems—and the majority of the state legislature is GOP.

        •  Of this list, the only ones that matter are MI, PA (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse

          and WI.  If the GOP did this in OH, VA and FL it would hurt them more than it would hurt us.

          Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

          by khyber900 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:44:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  trying to think through the math on this.. (0+ / 0-)
            Of this list, the only ones that matter are MI, PA . If the GOP did this in OH, VA and FL it would hurt them more than it would hurt us.
            I suspect whether OH VA and FL matter could depend on whether the change is also made MI and PA. I think you may be right about OH VA and FL alone in that if a Democrat wins the usual Kerry states perhaps a combination of electoral votes from OH VA and FL could put him/her over the top even if he/she doesn't actually win those states. Gore would have certainly won under such and arraignment and perhaps Kerry as well. Obama would have still won easily both times as he didn't need the electoral votes from any of those states. Hard to imagine a scenario in which the Republican benefits.

            If PA and MI are modified leaving a Democrat with considerably less EVs perhaps then an intact OH FL or VA could play a large role in putting the Democrat over the top. Given the gains in NM and CO if Obama holds those states then OH and VA plus the partial electoral votes in PA and MI could take the place of the usual full electoral votes of PA and MI. If OH and VA are also split it becomes considerably harder I think.

            Thus, making the change in OH VA and FL alone seem helpful to the Democrats. PA and MI alone seem modestly helpful to the republicans but OH VA FL PA and MI seem most helpful to the Republicans. Interesting dilemma for the Republicans there. Do the push the change in a state like VA without knowing for sure first that MI and PA will follow and possibly make things worse for themselves?

      •  I am always a positive optimist but living here in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StanBlather

        PA, I do think it is going to happen, sadly. They will just wait and do it after the governor gets a second term is what I am thinking.  The governor knows he is in deep shit about the Sandusky matter as he was atty general and he knew about Sandusky 2 years before he was arrested and had a ton of evidence but did nothing.  He just turned the matter over to the acting AG after he was elected and she pursued it..2 years later.

        So now he is suing the NCAA trying to get Penn State alum and Penn State student voters and so on...there are a ton of Penn State alum in the state and with money to contribute to who are Republicans.

        So if he gets a second term , I think it is done deal here in PA.  People said voter id would never happen here but it did.

        Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

        by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:37:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, the answer seems obvious. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell

          Don't let him get a second term.

          If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

          by MikePhoenix on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:23:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We are trying but we will need a very strong (0+ / 0-)

            Democrat to challenge him as PA tends to be one of those states where incumbents have a huge advantage, even some unpopular ones.  Santorum was the exeption so it can happen.  But Casey also beat Man on Dog is a good year of the wave election of 2006. We need another wave election in 2 years...we can try ..we will need massive GOTV across the country but especially in states like PA, OH, FL, WI where the teabagging governors and legislatures are..we need to change things and fast.

            Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

            by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:56:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  They are not waiting until a second term. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell

          So just let your rep/sen know they will pay if they pull this crap.  I've done that.

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:54:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is my fear, it is going to happen soon (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            newfie

            and fast from what we are hearing....the more I looked into this, found out you are probably right.  We need to get to work here...I will keep you posted.

            Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

            by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:57:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  This initiative should have been done last year (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RUNDOWN, MPociask, emidesu, wishingwell

    When you have 2012 turnout levels, not next year, when you have a midterm electorate that is more Republican-dominated.

    But better late than never to get started on this.

    •  NPV was Introduced in 2006 (0+ / 0-)

      The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

      NationalPopularVote       
      Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  •  The GOP is plotting to confiscate your vote. (0+ / 0-)

    BLO for helicopters.  (This campaign has been highly effective for some.  And remember the minority backlash against voter suppression?)

    Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

    by judyms9 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:23:56 AM PST

  •  A friendly suggestion - perhaps you could (8+ / 0-)

    edit the title to read "The Republicans will win in 2016 - UNLESS…"

    I assumed this was a troll diary and only opened it to see what dimension of trollishness was in it. You might get more, and more receptive, readers with an edit to the title.



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:29:39 AM PST

  •  GOP is not going to change 48 states in 4 years (3+ / 0-)

    That being said, the Electoral College is far past its expiration date. It stinks.

    •  They only need to change a few. (9+ / 0-)

      That's the point, actually. Change it in only a couple of swing states where Dems currently have an advantage. They don't want to change winner-take-all in any state they currently have a lock on -- such as Texas, Utah, and the Bible-Belt. They only want/need to change it in about 5 select states.

      Our Fair City...a campy post-apocalyptic science fiction radio epic!

      by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:45:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even 1 state is a big goal (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40, StanBlather

        I'll gladly wager a Coke right now that the GOP will not change a single state in time for the 2016 election. Five or so? I've got bigger worries on my plate, fer sure.

        Actually in a sense I welcome this effort. In the long run it's biggest effect is probably to point out the detrimental nature of the EC. By playing games with the EV count, it may well prove to Americans that we should just junk the EC plain and simple.

        •  I don't disagree with you... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund, MPociask

          ...merely pointing out that it wouldn't take 48 states.

          Our Fair City...a campy post-apocalyptic science fiction radio epic!

          by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:27:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I do think it might happen in PA and VA, both (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StanBlather, Quicklund

          states seem to be pursuing it and I know PA Republicans have a bill ready to go.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:39:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  no chance in VA (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishingwell, Q Tip, Quicklund, Drdemocrat

            The State Senate is 20-20, and at least one Republican (as well as the Lt. Gov.) is against it.

            •  PA will probably go first and I think it will (0+ / 0-)

              happen here, sadly.

              Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

              by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:49:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The reason I think it is closer to happening in PA (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Quicklund

              is there has been talk about this for almost a year in the commonwealth. We have been hearing about this for longer now.

              Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

              by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:49:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The governor must be defeated in 2014 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wishingwell

                and the people must work over the next 2 years to overturn that law either by the courts or a ballot initiative.

                President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

                by Drdemocrat on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:06:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  we don't have ballot iniatives, or very very few (0+ / 0-)

                  I cannot remember the last time I voted on a state measure..maybe 10 yrs ago.  And we must defeat Corbett but we need a really strong Democrat to do so. As Corbett is willing to do anything to win, he is even suing the NCAA because of Penn State when he sat on the board of trustees and he was the acting AG at the time Sandusky's crimes were first reported. He slowed walked that investigation for over 2 years because he did not want to lose favor with Penn State alums or lose Paterno's endorsement..that is what many of us think..and what new AG Kathleen Kane plans to investigate.  Our big hope to get Corbett out if Kane finding some dirt on him that we know is there.

                  But PA has a history of all governors serving 2 terms, then we change parties for another 8 and so on. I am very worried Corbett will manage to get a second term..sadly.

                  Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

                  by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:47:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Corbett is acting desperate with some of his (0+ / 0-)

                  actions....where he went to Penn State and bragged about being tough and firing Paterno, now he is saying the NCAA was wrong and the penaties unjust..as he has lost favor with a lot of Penn Staters for a lot of his actions and with the rest of us, we are angry he slowed walked the Sandusky matter. There was a kid in Lock Haven suicidal because Corbett was taking so long and no one was listening to him or offering him any hope Sandusky would be arrested and tried. Most told the kid to let it go !!!

                  Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

                  by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:49:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for the education (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishingwell

            I am now a better informed Kossack.

    •  they don't... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RUNDOWN, wishingwell

      want to...you really think they want this Virgina plan installed in Georgia or Texas?

      "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

      by JackND on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:47:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Georgia or Texas are the sort of states (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Steve Canella

        in which the GOP might have enough rubber stamps to pull it off.

        Most states, however, are not going to let themselves be shut out of the POTUS-picking process. In my experience, these too-cute-by-half exercises in gamesmanship feature as much blowback as benefit.

        The GOP found a new petard to play with instead of legislating. Voters are starting to take notice of that sort of stuff. We have many bigger worries.

    •  Their plan is to NOT bring this to many states (6+ / 0-)

      Red states: keep winner-takes-all
      Blue states: proportional electoral distribution.

      See what happens? The "blue vote" gets cut in half, the "red vote" is untouched.

      If this is enacted in just a few blue states, it's game-over.

      Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

      by walk2live on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:22:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except that doesn't happen in a vaccum (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emidesu

        Mental exercise: How to the residents and lawmakers of states react, when they are informed that no mattr how they vote their choices will not impact the Presidential race one iota?

        Let the GOP play with their newest, shiniest petard.

        •  What? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT

          That's the current system - people's votes don't impact the Presidential race one iota in the majority of states.  The Republicans have a very easy sell on ending winner-take-all, because winner-take-all is an anti-democratic, counter-intuitive system.  "Every vote counts" could be their slogan.  Of course, they'd be doing it for bad ends.

          •  No, he's talking about the possible complacency (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, StanBlather

            of a conservative voter living in a formerly blue state thinking that the legislature wrapped this up for him or her in a neat bow.  Why bother to vote when they've taken care of it already?

            You could fight this and even gerrymandering, but you'd have to have a massive effort at education, registration and GOTV.  That's how we turned some of those red states blue in the first place.  

          •  That was not my meaning. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nicejoest

            Let's break it down by way of example.

            1) A deeply red state - let's say Alabama - votes 65% GOP - 33% DEM - 2% Misc in the 1st Presidential election under this system.

            2) The Democratic candidate wins the total national vote.

            3) Alabama voters are told all their state's Electoral Votes - the only votes which elect the POTUS - will be cast for the Democratic candidate.

            Question: Millions of Alabama voters will be

            A: Furious beyond measure.
            B: Giggling with delight.

            As a bonus answer the same question under scenario 2a.

            2a) The Democratic candidate wins the total national vote, but the Republican would have won under the EC used in 2012.

            I do not see this sort of half-measure workaround lasting 10 seconds under the heat of an actual election. It would well cause more problems than it solves.

  •  Constitutionally (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RUNDOWN, shaharazade

    Where can we fight this?

    Does not appear that this current attempt would represent the WILL of the PEOPLE and that should have some pull.

    Then again, we have 5 idiots on the Supreme Court.  Actually, they aren't idiots (well 2 are worthless) and know exactly what they are doing.... Giving the Republicans the Power they so CRAVE and WANT (even though they claim they don't like Government).

    -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

    by MarciaJ720 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:36:01 AM PST

  •  Is anybody talking (3+ / 0-)

    about progressives organizing national economic boycotts of states in which this gets any further?  Or the denial of federal contracts to businesses in those states?

  •  I'd be curious how the public would react... (7+ / 0-)

    I mean, if the GOP had set up this system last year in the states where they own the State Leg, Romney would have won the election despite getting over 5 MILLION less votes.

    It's one thing to see the national popular vote lost by a slim margin, as we saw in FL. That's tough to swallow and draws attention to the inequity built into the Electoral College...but in that case it's a problem that all the states share and only tipped the scales a minor amount.

    It's a completely different animal if a handful of states changed their system, and because of those states' being out of the norm from the rest of the electoral college, led to a party losing the White House while still winning several million more votes.

    I really think that would drive quite a bit of uproar -- and I'm one of the most politically cynical people here.

    Our Fair City...a campy post-apocalyptic science fiction radio epic!

    by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:42:24 AM PST

    •  It would have been a mess... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, StanBlather

      And very ugly... but Romney would be President. All the fist-shaking in the world doesn't change the law. The only other alternative would be a civil war / insurrection.

      Bush v. Gore was a mess too... but mostly because it dragged along so long. If Romney got elected as a "minority president", it would happen instantly. Obama would have no legal ground to protest it, and conceed.

      People would have been pissed, but the end result would have been "President Romney"

      Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

      by walk2live on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:30:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It does make you wonder (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jabney, gosoxataboy

      whether they have any conscience left at all. The regular Republican voters, I mean. I realize their leaders don't and have not in at least 15 years. But would regular Republicans feel even the slightest twinge of discomfort if, say, their candidate lost by 5 million votes but still gained the White House due to this plan? If nothing else it does reinforce the idea that if it happens in one direction it could happen the other and that has got to give someone pause.

  •  This plan... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RockiesHawk, RUNDOWN

    isn't any better just because the GOP is putting out stupid ideas of their own.

    In an election where, say, California, Illinois, and New York all gave the vast majority of their popular vote to the Democrat, but the Republican narrowly won the national popular vote, California, Illinois and New York would have to give their electoral votes to the Republican even though the Democrat overwhelmingly carried them all.

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:46:23 AM PST

  •  you forgot PA (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, RUNDOWN, wishingwell

    unless I missed it.

    i am with the others. the way to stop this is to make the political price not worth it. that is possible in PA, because the governor is up for reelection in 2014.

    the other way is to win anyway. if there is anything that will get HRC to jump into the 2016 race, this will be it. that happens, and a lot of GOP heavy hitters stay out, they run another weak candidate, we win everything we won last time plus NC and possibly others. EV result might be deceptively small, but the Pop vote won't be, and that will clearly show voters what it was the GOP was after. lots of risks here for the Grand Old Oligarchy.

    •  Well I am guessing that here in PA (3+ / 0-)

      they want to make it happen before he is ousted.  Once it is in place and a Dem is Governor there will still be a Republican legislature who will not be inclined to change the law.

      Lots of risk sure but the gains (albeit relatively short term) are enough for them.  Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida.  All States with a GOP Gov and GOP controlled legislatures.  All States pursuing the aforementioned EV vote changes.  All States with a majority of Dems or a close split.  And if that had occurred prior to 2012 (like they were trying) then it would have been a President Romney with a 5 million plus deficit in actual votes.

      I'd say that tilts the ice a bit in the GOP favor.

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:26:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  if the do, the Gov has to take a chance (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emidesu, newfie, wishingwell, MikePhoenix

        on running in a statewide election with having undercut Obama voters on his record. its not at all clear that he cares more about splitting EVs in 2016 than winning reelection himself in 2014.

        •  the dicotomy of our feared Republican enemy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell

          they are selfish narcissists who put their party above all other considerations, including their constituents and even their own political careers.

          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

            it's hard to be a narcissist AND put party ahead of oneself.  I think it depends on which direction he sees himself gaining more - if he (Corbett) sees that he is toast in PA then he can get more party points for helping the cause.  If he thinks he has a half decent shot at a second term - maybe not.

            "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

            by newfie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:35:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I could have been more clear (0+ / 0-)

              I don't thin Corbett is either of those things.  But we have a tendency to think both too much and too little of the people we find ourselves opposed to.

              Our hated enemy is all things and more.  he's diabolical and idiotic.  he's disciplined and sloppy.  he's a narcissist and completely selfless.

              The enemy has to be that way because he is the enemy and the enemy is always the way that would be most dangerous to our goals.

              In reality I don't think any of these states will adopt these partial apportionment of electoral votes because it's a really bad deal for the state.

              •  You'd think. (0+ / 0-)

                But this is second go in 6 months in PA.  They dropped it the first time because it got too much attention.  Now - I'm not sure it is getting attention locally.

                "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

                by newfie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:56:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Or he has a fat (0+ / 0-)

          chance in hell anyway so why not throw out the baby with the bath water.  He is not well liked for a whole host of reasons.  And maybe he will see it as taking one (that he already was going to take) for the team.

          Maybe not.  Maybe he still holds up hope.  We have a ways to go until 2014.  He should take a look to the east to see how it's done.

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:32:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  No constitutional initiatives in PA (0+ / 0-)

      The public can't start a constitutional initiative in Pennsylvania, so I don't see a way to stop it there. Do you?

  •  Perhaps when you're done with this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subterranean

    you can get back to riding your unicorn whilst searching for pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.

  •  What do you propose we do here in (0+ / 0-)

    Texas?

    With the supermajority the GOP has in both state houses, the "irrepressible Ricky" Perry as Governor, and a gerrymandered set of state and US representatives' districts across the state, what would you have us do?  This national popular vote idea will go nowhere.

    I'm part of the "bedwetting bunch of website Democrat base people (DKos)." - Rush Limbaugh, 10/16/2012 Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

    by tom 47 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:07:07 AM PST

    •  Texas doesn't need to do anything (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, Steve Canella

      If 270 EVs worth of states join the NPV movement, then every state will have its votes counted toward the national vote total, and the winner of the national vote will become president. All the blue cities in Texas (and red rural areas) will see presidential candidates visiting, because Texas voters, like all voters, will be in play.

  •  this is what they want: for the left to split. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40

    half for one person one vote
    and
    half trying to protect the electoral college winner take all.

    they are not only trying to change the rules state by state but to try to make us take sides in the policy debate, like in this diary.
    whatever the policy, we need to stick together with which has the most public support.

    "A dollah makes me hollah"-- Stephen Colbert, pretending to be S. Palin

    by stagemom on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:15:28 AM PST

    •  If you view it from the lens of "fair elections" (0+ / 0-)

      it's not forcing a split.

      The issue is this: the GOP wants to go the wrong way.

      At a minimum, we want to protect the status quo. At an optimum, we want to move in a fairer direction.

      And NOTHING, fundamentally speaking, can be fairer—in the sense of "every vote counts equally"—than a national popular vote.

      Those of us who want an NPV can protect the status quo while still working on the better solution.

      We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

      by Samer on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:09:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Biggest challenge with this is explaining (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, MPociask, wishingwell

    THE MATH.

    I can't tell you how many people simply don't understand how the NPV is intended to work. It's really not that complicated once you "get it"... and I've had lots of "a-ha" moments where the light clicks-on & someone actually understands the concept. But, it's an uphill battle. I know the math isn't really that complicated, but many people are intimidated by the very prospect of thinking too much about this.

    Anyway, your talking point is pretty good, actually (it avoids THE MATH)... However, it would help to have a non-partisan version. It would help to convince Republicans of the NPV as well.

    Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

    by walk2live on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:18:44 AM PST

    •  Partisan talking point (0+ / 0-)

      I totally agree that NPV needs to be explained in a non-partisan way, just not right now. Right now, we need to explain to Democratic power brokers and influencers why they need to make this a priority. Once they're on board, they can talk to the public with a non-partisan message.

  •  No (0+ / 0-)
    we must switch to a national popular vote
    We will end up with Micky Mouse for president.
  •  I live in Maine ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Q Tip, emidesu

    .. and I just e-mailed the Maine Democratic Party and Dirigo Blue, urging them to support an NPV initiative.

    Great diary!!!

    "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

    by JBL55 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:50:25 AM PST

  •  Moreover, they will take 2014 & we will watch (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, AoT

    it and 2016 happen without leaving our chairs.

    Oh, some of us will go to D.C. and raise a ruckus, but most, all those who will make the difference, will busy themselves with familiar daily trivia, warm in the knowledge that nothing is new under the sun, except perhaps earth's atmosphere, the danger from which, if any, someone will surely save us.

    The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

    by Words In Action on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:03:28 AM PST

  •  Correction (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, AoT

    the NY State legislature is only partially under Democratic control.  The Democrats have the most seats, but 6 traitors decided to caucus with the GOP, with Cuomo's blessing.

    "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

    by TLS66 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:08:57 AM PST

    •  I know (0+ / 0-)

      You're totally right, but I'm guessing you saw that error and raced to the comments to clarify that for me without seeing the explanation in the next paragraph? No shame in that, I've been guilty of that countless times.

      That said, this is a good opportunity to discuss whether the state senate would pass such a bill, or whether Dems can retake control of the senate in 2014. Are Dems in those safe Dem districts where the switches happened sufficiently outraged to kick out their half-Dem senators?

      Or, could the idea of New York being important in presidential elections for the first time in decades (centuries?) be enough to get it passed in the senate despite the GOP-I.Dem. coalition?

  •  I prefer a direct popular vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    suzq

    But if there is to be an EC, it should really be apportioned by state, not congressional district.  Districts can be gerrymandered to suit one party's purposes. State boundaries are immutable.

    "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

    by TLS66 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:14:13 AM PST

  •  Your diary is an illustration of the power (4+ / 0-)

    of making a clear political vision and plan and then taking it out on the road for a spin with organizing.

    Bravo!!   Press on with your exemplary work!!

  •  A better solution is for us to work to get (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, suzq, ScottyUrb, Drdemocrat

    all Democrats out to vote in 2014.  Then we can retake the legislatures we lost in 2010 and change states like mine, Texas.

    "But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence." - President Clinton

    by anonevent on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:17:18 AM PST

    •  Yes we need massive GOTV efforts for 2014 to get (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Drdemocrat

      out some of these teabagging governors in blue states. It can happen but we need a huge turnout for changes at the state level in these blue states with right wing governors.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:44:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We reallly need to defeat Corbett, Kasich, Walker (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DownstateDemocrat

      and so on....and before that, get a Democratic governor in VA.  As I fear most for PA and VA in terms of this happening with splitting electoral votes. I can see it happening in both states very soon.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:45:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is the most important initiative in our time. (0+ / 0-)

    We have not had true democracy because of the electoral college despite all the propaganda to the contrary.

  •  sorry ballot initiatives would be unconstitutional (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Q Tip, suzq, dorkenergy

    Constitution specifies that state legislature shall decide how the electoral votes shall be awarded

    to go around the state legislature by initiative would therefore not meet constitutional muster

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:40:31 AM PST

    •  Good catch (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dorkenergy

      Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

      But perhaps the amendments can be written in such a way as to let the legislature "direct the manner" in which the state awards all of its electors to the national winner? Basically, a lawyerly technicality?

    •  The initiative process has the power (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gosoxataboy, Q Tip, k88dad

      of the legislature through delegation and as such would be constitutional, although I would expect a court challenge.

      •  if a legislature has to amend state constitution (0+ / 0-)

        and that requires a vote by the citizenry, or if the legislature chooses to turn it over to a referendum, that may meet the requirement.

        If it is placed on the ballot by citizen initiative, I'm sorry, it would not meet the requirements of the US Constitution

        and I was a responding to a statement that if the legislature refused to act then people should do it by initiative and referendum

        "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

        by teacherken on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 12:46:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It might be easier to get big purple states (0+ / 0-)

    like Florida after everybody has healthcare and realizes how much they were lied to by Republicans about "Obamacare".

  •  At what point do we just ban the GOP (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    portlandval, dorkenergy

    from governing.

    With the BS they tried with voting suppression to this.

    It's pretty obvious to me the greatest threat to our democracy is republicans cheating us out of our democracy.

    If Conservatism was so great you would think they could find a sane person to represent it. Since the only people who represent it seem to be insane. I'm waiting for the day conservatism is labeled a mental illness

    by SharksBreath on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:42:58 AM PST

    •  Why elect people who don't believe in Governing? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gosoxataboy, dorkenergy

      I agree completely.  Why would you elect a person who wants to tear down the structure within which they are supposed to work constructively?  This is what is happening.  A slowly evolving coup de'tat that takes away power from the people and puts it into hands of a few powerful.

      •  That's the Norquislings & Teashirts' goal (0+ / 0-)

        Create societal strife. Break down democratic/representative government.
        Then takeover by coercion/force/violence/threat.

        The teathugs are emulating the 1920s' Third Reich.
        It can happen here.

        ♥ Repeal the Capital Gains, Carried Interest & Dividends Entitlements bequeathed to 'more special' taxpayers.

        by in on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 11:02:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Like your idea, buy it will never happen. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MikePhoenix

    Republicans are the smarter party.  Democrats are the more popular party.  The smarter party will figure out a way to win.

    This electoral vote switch is an example.  It is ironic that you post this diary about Republican hardball tactics on the same day the Democrats are about to go soft on filibuster reform in the senate.

    Now I hope you see how smart and ferocious the Republicans are and how weak and accommodating the Democrats are.

  •  we need a national Democratic leader... (0+ / 0-)

    to be the point person in this fight. We need a group with a lot of members who believe in the cause. I wonder who we can get to stop this blatant cheating from happening?

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:45:20 AM PST

  •  I don't think this will take off UNTIL (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Q Tip

    the first state moves their EVs to the gerrymandered district process that the GOPers want.

    Once that happens, the residents of that state will demand a constitutional amendment or change.  And Dems across the nation will be mobilized to push for a change like this--especially in those states you mentioned.

    You asked for my support and you have it. But human nature being what it is... especially DEMOCRATIC PARTY human nature... its not a problem until it is.  My state party is a fucking, fucking joke. Don't expect any help from them either.

    The Seminole Democrat
    Confronting the criminally insane who rule our state; as well as the apathy of the vast majority who let them.

    by SemDem on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:46:30 AM PST

  •  Their Endgame Includes Bloody Crackdowns & Killing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012, jabney, StanBlather

    If election night erupts in firestorm over obvious cheating, it'll all merely fit into their overall plan.

    Just like the Nazis who claimed they merely defending themselves against genocidal jews who were going to enslave them, the militias and Oathkeepers have spent years mentally rehearsing how they are going to "defend themselves."

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:48:47 AM PST

  •  How about... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012, ScottyUrb

    throwing the bums out at the state level instead?  That's a much more doable option at this point than getting rid of the EC.

  •  So we should start moving now (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, jabney, Capt Morgan

    because this is totally chisled in stone?

    America cant tolerate 4 more years of republican sociopathy.

    Moving will finally be on the table.

    If America is going to be bulldozed and burned and we can't do anything legally while the GOP does all this shit illegally, then it is game over.

    I hope for riots.

    Voting failed.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:11:06 AM PST

    •  I'm already planning on leaving (0+ / 0-)

      Looking at China, possibly Taiwan.  Not sure yet.  I'm just done with the U.S.

      •  I can go to Viet Nam - maybe teach english (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT

        or something

        I don't want to move but republicans will have death squads roaming the country if they are re-elected.

        And their asshole laws will make life needlessly ugly.

        They will push it to the limit and americans will likely lay there and take it.

        Frogs in a pot.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:45:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I desagree with the absolutist defeatist tone of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ScottyUrb, Drdemocrat, Steve Canella

    this diary. Even if ALL the states cited were rigged (Pa., Ohio, Wisc., Michigan, Virg., and Fla.), Demcrats would still have a (granted by probably only 5-10 electoral votes, if they carried either NC or Georgia, hardly impossible, especially with resources put in those states.

    "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

    by TofG on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:13:34 AM PST

  •  Hillary probably wins even with rigged EV (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drdemocrat

    Just sayin' - it would be funny if they tried to pull this off (let's say in PA) and Hillary won anyway - and then everyone got behind the pop. vote.

    The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. --George Orwell

    by jgkojak on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:24:07 AM PST

  •  Stop asking GOP, "Mother May I" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StanBlather

    The GOP is a criminal organization.

    Every Democrat should be bringing criminal charges against every GOP their organizations.

    Every prosecutor should be going after these criminals for RICO Act crimes.

    This is not political activity.

    This is rigging elections every year to gain power for bribes from the rich and corporations.

    It is corruption on a massive scale in broad daylight.

    There is history to this corruption, check the history books for Europe in the 1930s. That is the model the GOP are implementing.

    The GOP is a criminal organization.

    Time to kill the beast.

    •  Sometimes in my emotional moments (0+ / 0-)

      I believe the Republican Party should be shut down and its leaders arrested and indicted under RICO.

      liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

      by RockyMtnLib on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:17:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  this too will fail (0+ / 0-)

    i am not worried about it. they try and try and fail.

  •  This was, of course, inevitable with the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StanBlather, Steve Canella

    way the electoral college works. All it takes is a bit of scheming and malice. And apparently a little desperation.

    It should be illegal for someone who doesn't win the popular vote to be President. I don't care who it is. You don't win popular, you don't get to be President.

    The Republicans know they are in trouble. A Jesus-cult filled run by the greedy and powered by the ignorant.

    The only youth vote they will ever get at this rate is a minority: those who drive up yelling "Git r Done!" in a pickup, Jesus-camp brainwashed kids soaked in religion, and wealthy kids who haven't worked a day in their life yet were lucky enough to have filthy rich parents.

    Outside of that, they are doomed.

    And as the older people die off, and the better educated, more evolved newer generations age and have their own kids, they are on the way to destruction, as CATZ would say.

    So they have two options:
    A) A modern makeover.

    Get rid of the religious, racist, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-women stuff and take a more youth-attractive Ron Paul approach (minus the pro-forced-birth stuff) and attempt to attract a new brand of liberterianism.

    Or

    B) Cheat to win.

    Given the old religious and hateful fossils in that party, I'm not shocked they chose Option B.

    The question is: Will it work?

  •  National popular vote renders low density (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, jayden

    populations  irrelevant.  If I were running for president  I could offer something really nifty to states with ocean or great lake coast lines and completely ignore the entire low population, landlocked middle of the country and all of its issues.  California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Wiconsin represent  a massive part of the population and all  have oceanic or great lake coastline.  Montana, South Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Wyoming, etcetera might as well call it taxation without representation at that point.

    Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

    by lockewasright on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:21:14 PM PST

    •  Unlike now (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lockewasright

      Where the coastal states can go fuck themselves until it comes time to beg for money.

      •  It's pretty sad. (0+ / 0-)

        Still, offer something nifty to people who live in cities with a population over a certain size and ignore rural populations and their issues and the point remians.  The national popular vote idea is one that the framers had reason for avoiding.

        Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

        by lockewasright on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:49:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The cities are liberal bastions (0+ / 0-)

          And we could do worse than following their lead.

          But really, what is it that could swing an election that would be bad for the country as a whole and good for everyone in cities over a certain size?  

          When the constitution was written we were about 80% rural and 20% urban, now it's the opposite and more so.  Urban areas are hugely under represented and larger states are screwed because of it.  This is why public transit gets the shaft.  It's bullshit.

          •  The point that you are missing (0+ / 0-)

            is that he electoral college forces a a presidential candidate to run for whole states, not divide the population into interest groups and ignore the smaller ones.  That's why I expressed two different scenarios for doing so.  Both times, you've avoided the larger point and nitpicked at the example instead.

            Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

            by lockewasright on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:10:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Let's try another example. Manifest destiny is not (0+ / 0-)

              yet complete.  The east/ great lakes region is more populated than the center or west of the country.  Offer massive tuition discounts to residents of states with state universities older than 155 years old.  That gives you almost everything to the east of the Mississippi and Texas.

              Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

              by lockewasright on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:17:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The rural states would still have the Senate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT

          representation in their favor.

        •  Top 50 Cities - Only 15% of US Pop (0+ / 0-)

          Given the historical fact that 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about presidential candidates campaigning only in big cities.

          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 15% 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.

          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.

          With National Popular Vote, when every vote 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.

          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.

          With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically.  There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state.  When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win.  A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

          Candidates would need 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 waitress mom voters in Ohio.

          With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.  Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.

    •  80% of US Politically Irrelevant Now (0+ / 0-)

      Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored.

      In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

      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).

      Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since 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. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states 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%.

      Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine 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 with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

    •  Now Only 11 States Can Determine Presidency (0+ / 0-)

      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.  

      In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
      * Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
      * New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
      * Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
      * North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
      * California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
      * Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
      * New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

      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).

  •  Wrong solution (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, Rich in PA

    If there were a National Popular Vote system then cheating in say Texas could skew the whole vote.  The solution is to fight in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and keep the system that we have.

    If the National Vote was as close as Florida in 2000, what would happen?  No one would ever concede defeat either.  This is the wrong solution to a big problem.

    •  And what's your plan for fighting? (0+ / 0-)

      You're going to magically restrain the GOP when that clearly has failed numerous times?

      And it isn't as if cheating in individual states doesn't affect the results now.  See 2000 for an example.

    •  Now 537 Votes in One State Can Determine Winner (0+ / 0-)

      The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, 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.

      National Popular Vote 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 in 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 two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

      Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

    •  2000 Was Artificial Crisis (0+ / 0-)

      The current presidential election system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely, not less likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000, a recount in Florida would not have been an issue.

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

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

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

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

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

      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.
      “It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

      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 57 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

      The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.  With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.  In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

  •  There are several diaries on this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT

    and this is a good sign and a good start I think.

    I just finished reading Four Reasons to Feel Proud of and Excited by the Filibuster Reform Fight by Chris Bowers where he pretty much puts everything into context, which is always helpful. Reading it made me think: filibuster reform is a hugely complicated, not very glamorous topic, but like Chris rightly points out, it's finally gotten significant mainstream attention and support due to dual progressive coalitions advocating reform. As a result we didn't get everything we wanted, and that objectively sucks, but we did get things that were not within the realm of possibility two years ago. Chris does a good job with the details.

    I bring this up because I think there is resonance between the process of reforming the filibuster and the subject of handling this latest power grab by the GOP. This topic is already getting attention on DK, so we are seeing the incubation of the idea. Now we just need to talk about it unceasingly, make people pay attention the way they started paying attention to filibuster reform. We have to do the work that needs to be done to get as many coalitions fighting this power grab until it dies the miserable death it deserves.

    We will need to shame every single state representative that votes in favor of this power grab in every outlet and as loudly as possible; portray them as the corrupt totalitarians they are. We should seek to nationalize the issue the way gun control has been nationalized; get our progressives in the federal government to shine a huge light into these tactics at the state and local level and show everyone all over the world what they are up to. They are deliberately doing this when people aren't paying attention, and this needs to be reported on far and wide.

    The GOP lost an election they thought was in the bag for them. Imagine how badly they now want to win the next one, by hook or by crook. They can practically taste it.

    We just have to want to win more than that and make it happen as if our lives depended on it.

    •  Ha! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StanBlather

      "We will need to shame every single state representative"

      These people have no shame, so you cannot shame them. Their goal is power and they will do what they have to in order to get it. Even if they are likely to get voted out as a result. Because there will always be a lobbying job or something like that to compensate them for the loss.

      They are not just gerrymandering congressional districts, they are gerrymandering the state legislatures as well. With a permanent majority in the statehouse and the congressional districts we are looking at the Senate as the only place we will get to have a fair chance at electing someone.

      Undoing this will be very difficult and painful and probably take a very long time if it can ever be accomplished.

      The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

      by TiredOfGOPLies on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:52:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I doubt this will happen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA

    If Va does this they guarantee a democratic governor, same with Pa. Also Ohio, Va and Fl are competitive for republicans if they get a good candidate.
    It would be kind of dumb to give democrats EV when they can win them all. I think there will be an uproar if this happens. The reality would be we would no longer have a democracy.

  •  Gerrymandering is wrong, but I am not convinced (0+ / 0-)

    that a national popular vote is the right answer either.  The problem I see is that the election could, or rather would, be dominated by a few areas of dense population.  I may be Liberal in my views, but that doesn't mean that these areas represent my interests and I would still like to have a valid say.  I would like to better understand what the implications of such a change would be fore endorsing any.  

    •  It will no longer be about "areas" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT

      It will be about votes. Your vote in Peapatch, Iowa will count just the same as someone else's vote in Manhattan. The election won't be dominated by "areas," it will be dominated by the majority of voters, everywhere.

    •  It's far worse right now... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MBishop1

      Neither Obama nor Romney campaigned west of Iowa. Tell me how that addresses the interests of any westerner?.. which is half the country?

      Even in the east, they only campaigned in a handful of states.

      The electoral college system is crazy.

      Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

      by walk2live on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:48:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's one man one vote. (0+ / 0-)

      Why shouldn't each vote count the same?

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:16:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  REPUBLICANS WILL NOT TAKE THE WH IN 2016 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaBlue

    thought I'd undo your karmic pronouncement!

    It's a huge concern, but not as definite as your title suggests.

    I don't want to read the diary. The title sounds so "case-closed" I think it's going to be depressing. If your title is actually more definitive than the content or what you mean, as sometimes happens, you might want to changes it so people don't get the wrong idea about the content.

    Otherwise, hope but furious work to prevent the coup d'etat (if this is about the Reps trying to rig everthing via electoral college allotment to gerrymandered congressional districts) is in order I think.

    Sometimes I use an intellectual "trick" with myself by saying to self the worse case scenario as fact. It feels like it immunizes me against possible bad news/the worst outcome. Maybe that's the source of the titles absolute difinitiveness. (it doesn't say "Grave danger in Rep winning in 2016" or "Huge issue likely to lead to Rep win..." or anything. Your wording is the only wording that would make it so.

    Have you heard of the law of attraction or the power of intention? It's not a superstition. Words matter because they shape thought.

  •  My state is not on the list, but (0+ / 0-)

    I forwarded this diary to my local Democrat Club officers so we can do what we can to help.

    Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead. ~K. Vonnegut

    by Greek Goddess on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:16:09 PM PST

  •  Absolutely, totally disagree. (0+ / 0-)

    The electoral college can be frustrating - but it's one of the balances that keep the small states from being bullied by the big ones.

    We would be far better off investing our money and efforts into making sure the vote isn't rigged in Ohio and Florida - with independently verifiable voting machines that are relatively hack-proof and have a paper audit trail.

    They can do it with ATM's, so there's no reason it can't be done with voting machines.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton | http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com

    by jbeach on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:17:01 PM PST

    •  With NPV, ALL states will no longer matter (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, walk2live, MBishop1

      Only individual people will matter. No one will care about California's 55 EVs or Ohio's swinginess. They will care about voters — each and every one of them. A vote up for grabs in Nowhere, KS will be worth the same as a vote up for grabs in Los Angeles.

      It's also a misconception that the electoral college makes small states important. It makes Ohio, Florida and Virginia important. Big states with divided electorates are the states that matter under the electoral college.

      •  No. States conflict, which matters to residents. (0+ / 0-)

        Consider Southern California's current use of Arizona's water. Now consider that, under a non-electoral college system, California could be wooed by a Presidential candidate who offered to negate *all of Arizona's water rights*. And that President could WIN.

        This is exactly how people in more populous states could and probably would bully those in less populous states.

        That's why, in my opinion, the electoral college system remains much better than any popular-vote-only system. Frustrating as that can be.

        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton | http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com

        by jbeach on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:08:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "I will evaporate the red states!" (0+ / 0-)

          That will play about as well as "I'm not going to worry about 47% of the people."

          It's true, states have parochial interests. But it's the electoral college (and the state-by-state primary system) that leads candidates to pander to states' pet issues, because candidates have to win individual states. That's why Democrats have to pretend coal is the clean energy of the future, and why they used to pretend that burning corn for fuel was sound farm policy. But a national popular vote will eliminate the entire strategy of "winning states." Candidates will have to win America — 50% +1 from anywhere and everywhere, with every voter as important as the next. By depriving Arizonans of water, you may gain votes among a subset of Californians who think it's fine to smite their neighbors, but you'll lose votes among the majority who think that's unfair.

          And honestly, "the guy who gets the most votes wins" is the rule in every advanced democracy but us. I think if our system were so great, or their system was so bad, there would be at least some interest to copy our electoral college. Instead, we saw the world guffaw in disbelief when in 2000, the so-called leading democracy of the free world gave the presidency to the guy who lost.

    •  States don't vote (0+ / 0-)

      Counties don't vote
      Cities don't vote
      Towns don't vote
      Neighborhoods don't vote

      People vote.

      If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

      by Major Kong on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:37:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do people live in states? (0+ / 0-)

        Yes.
        Do the interests of those states sometimes conflict?
        Yes.
        In that case, could a more populous state elect a president that would unfairly favor them over a less populous state?
        Absolutely.

        That's why the electoral college remains a better system that should not be replaced.

        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton | http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com

        by jbeach on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:12:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Less populous states (0+ / 0-)

          are already over represented.

          Wyoming, with roughly the population of Toledo, has the same number of senators as New York or California.

          If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

          by Major Kong on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:21:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  States won't matter. 50% of Americans will matter. (0+ / 0-)

          "Could a more populous state elect a president that would unfairly favor them over a less populous state?"

          No, "a more populous state" could not "elect a president" because we would end the practice of states electing presidents. (See my fuller explanation in a response to you upthread.) No president would try to "win California" (the Democrat will win every time). Instead, they'll try to increase turnout of X demographic or change the minds of Y demographic. People will matter, not states.

    •  Small States Voters Support National Pop Vote (0+ / 0-)

      Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored.

      In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

      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).

      Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since 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. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states 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%.

      Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine 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 with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

  •  I am literally shaking I am so mad about this! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, Q Tip, Steve Canella, VirginiaBlue

    Just contacted my New York legislators by phone and by email asking them to support the National Popular Vote.

    I don't know how viable this suggestion actually is, but I figured they needed to know how angry I am about what the Republican's are doing, and that I want them to ACT to prevent them from doing it.

    Also linked story to my twitter feed and facebook page asking people to spread it around.

    If you ever get to the place where injustice doesn't bother you, you're dead. ~~ Molly Ivins

    by zoebear on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:29:27 PM PST

  •  I would love to take away Ohio's and Florida's (0+ / 0-)

    inordinant influence on the horse race.

    "The opposite of faith is not doubt. It's certainty."

    by Simul Iustus et Peccator on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:57:38 PM PST

  •  If States May Allocate Their Electoral Votes..... (0+ / 0-)

    .... under the Constitution, why not ask the courts to rule that if a state is going to re-allocate their electoral votes, then this decision must go directly to the voters by popular referendum or by a truly bipartisan committee? That way, the state is still "complying" with the constitutional requirements of allowing states to decide how they will allocate their electoral votes but yet- imposing a fair, bipartisan system onto this that will protect the popular vote.

    This can protect voters, both Republicans (if Democrats snatch state legislatures) and Democrats if a re-allocation occurs.

    Otherwise, our democracy is at stake and it is time for revolution.

    If Not Us, Who,..... If Not Now, When?

    by VirginiaBlue on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:19:47 PM PST

  •  Hogwash! (0+ / 0-)

    You want fair?  Disband the Electoral College. The Democrats would then rule for decades.  Do you want that?
    The flaw in Q's reasoning is that he believes all these states
    will approve the division of electoral votes; they will not. Dems now know what to do about it, and I presume they
    will be effective in resisting the Rep chicanary.
    MrM/Palm Springs

  •  The Constiotution is broken (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT
    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
    Look, the Republican legislatures can just decide that they will vote to supply an all Republican electors slate. This almost happened in Florida in 2000.

    It's time to fess up that the Constitution is totally broken in it's mechanism to elect a national President. It only works because most states allow their citizens to vote for electors (not candidates, actually). Whether the state is winner take all or not obviously effects the outcome and any system enacted by a State Legislature is constitutional.

    The Constitution must be amended to guaranty something that resembles a fair and consistent outcome and takes away the rights of the individual state legislatures to meddle in the election of a national President.

  •  Everyone who did not vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice

    in the midterm elections of 2010 and in your statewide elections (whenever year they were): this is ON YOU

    ALL elections matter.  State house level elections matter.  Republicons and Democrats are NOT the same, damn it!

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:49:03 PM PST

  •  Federal Elections control, your time has come! (0+ / 0-)

    When the GOP too over my state some years ago (GA), they made a big deal about how the Dems had gerrymandered, so it was perfectly okay for them to do it, too.

    BUT...the previous 'mandering had been at the hands of the dreaded Dixicrats, who sought as always to keep the black man (and woman) down;  now here they were, back again, but the point was to make every district (so far as possible) a solid majority GOP district.  NOT what had been done before, but arguably FAR more evil:  so rigging the system that self-government become no longer capable of governing, creating Karl Rove's dream...a permanent Republican majority.

    Can't mince words this is not merely cheating, it is overt election-rigging - and it's spreading - and it's ONLY going ONE way.

    Add this to the Rube Goldberg fever-dream that is our vast array of third-world voting irregularity systems, and THIS is the end of the Republic, Republican-style.

    It is WAY past time for the Federal government to regularize and co-ordinate voting activities in every state.  Without it, as we have seen, there is NO END to the varieties of election theft that our elected criminals will get up to.  If we wish to maintain the reality of self-government over the alternate reality of permanent static rule, we need this to be nationwide, co-ordinated, and managed so that hoary old concept of the will of the people can survive the screech of the bought-and-paid-for.

    As nice as a National Popular Vote would be, it would be a greater change and more fraught with peril than the simple, progressive AND conservative principle of adjusting the system so that voting in Broward County is no different from voting in Fulton County, Boulder County, King County.....

    These are the United States of America.  If we can't ensure that elections are clear, fair, and and regularized, from district to district, state to state, then we're toast...and I don't mean 'eventually'.  Money and malice will ALWAYS find a way to warp the system; and the way things are now, we'll only have one shot at it.

    Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
    Mitch McConnell: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue"

    by chmood on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:53:23 PM PST

  •  Banana Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    ...and from the party so 'concerned' about 'voter fraud' too. LOL

  •  New York does not have a Democratic legislature (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT

    thanks to Andrew Cuomo and Jeff Klein.

    Please remember that come 2016.

  •  I'm not going to criticize the Republicans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Arlys

    ..for showing they have a spine, when I have spent so long wishing that the Dems had one.

    When extra-terrestrial beings make their first appearance on our planet, and ask for representatives of our species to best exemplify humanity, I'm sending a nurse, a librarian, and a firefighter.

    by Wayward Son on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:59:47 PM PST

    •  You won't criticize them.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Arlys

      ....for disenfranchising minorities?

      Wow.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:10:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is judicial review of redistricting. (0+ / 0-)

        Any gerrymandering that occurs and is left in place shall be considered legally as not disenfranchising minorities.

        So that issue is quite precisely NOT the subject matter at hand.

        When extra-terrestrial beings make their first appearance on our planet, and ask for representatives of our species to best exemplify humanity, I'm sending a nurse, a librarian, and a firefighter.

        by Wayward Son on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:14:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is the line (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Arlys, SoonerG

    If they cross this line I hope there is widespread discussion and legislation towards secession in blue states.

    This is nothing less than the institution of totalitarian government.

    The republicans are playing with fire, this could cause massive violence and riots

  •  The Tea Party IS America (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites, Arlys, SoonerG

    There is no stopping Republicans now. They OWN this country and will for the next 700 years. Gun owners' rights prevail. Health care is your problem. Tom DeLay's permanent political majority will dominate the political climate. Where is he anyway?
    The Republicans are the party of Ideas.
    Democrats are short-legged little people.
    The smartest people always carry concealed. Yeah.
    Why give everyone franchise when they do not deserve it?
    Restrict the Vote to Rich White Men. You may have to prove it, though. For every billion dollars you have, you get a billion votes. Simple. Easy. The underclass doesn't know what power wealth brings.
    And that brings me to slavery...........

  •  The problem is that we are vulnerable (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drdemocrat, Arlys, MBishop1

    to this GOP strategy right now.  Our first task has to be to do everything possible to thwart these efforts in blue states.  As for states like VA, that type of strategy probably hurts GOPers more than it helps them.  We could've won the election without VA, but they can't.  On the other hand, we can't win without PA and MI and they can.  We need to defend the blue states that have voted Democrat in the last 6 elections.  That means a full court press to win the governorship, legislative seats, and get ballot measures to thwart the GOP.  We also need to pressure local legislators (however difficult that may seem) to back off of these bills.

    The NPV initiative is a long-term solution. What we need right now is an immediate counterattack to the GOP strategy in blue states.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:43:17 PM PST

  •  How do you get a constitutional amendment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Arlys

    on the ballot in many of these states?

    President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

    by Drdemocrat on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:52:07 PM PST

    •  3% of US Pop Can Stop Amendment (0+ / 0-)

      To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

      To have the candidate with the most popular votes in the country guaranteed the presidency, only needs states with 138 more electoral college votes to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

      NationalPopularVote

  •  The Republikans are coming.!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Arlys

    One objection I have to banning firearms is that if we ban assault rifles, only RepubliKans will have assault rifles.  Make no mistake, if they lose another election, they intend to use them.  So you must choose between having the 2016 election rigged and armed insurrection which will be called "The Restoration of the Republik".

  •  Everyone knows it's a scheme. Why don't the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Arlys, Steve Canella, VirginiaBlue

    PEOPLE take it to the supreme court?  Lying, cheating and stealing is against the law isn't it?  From what I am gathering after so much revelation without shame, congress can lie, cheat and steal without any legal punishment.  It's an open modern day mafia government!

  •  Hoover vs Smith 1928, how long has this been.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT

    going on ??
     Sorry to the author if this is a touch of topic.
    I've been watching this series about prohibition, last night was part 4 of 5 and it included the 1928 Presidential election. Now if i didn't know a little about the Republican party I would have found this more shocking. Here's a couple of the smears they were pushing.
     The Klan were pushing the lie that Smith would have all Protestant babies declared illegitimate.
     Smith was having a special room built for the pope at the Whitehouse.
    The catholic church was utterly demonized by the GOP
     It was a filthy election, and really they (the GOP) haven't changed much.

    Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture

    by nezzclay on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:37:12 PM PST

  •  You're so right. Thanks for writing this! We (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Q Tip

    need to get going on this now!

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:42:59 PM PST

  •  Simple Counter: Eliminate the Electoral Colleg (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, SoonerG

    We should use this effort to make a loud, public call for an end to the electoral college - using this clear anti-democratic stunt by the GOP as an example.

    •  3% of US Pop Can Stop An Amendment (0+ / 0-)

      To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

      To have the candidate with the most popular votes in the country guaranteed the presidency, only needs states with 138 more electoral college votes to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

      NationalPopularVote

  •  OK.. you asked for it, you got it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Q Tip

    The Seminole Democrat
    Confronting the criminally insane who rule our state; as well as the apathy of the vast majority who let them.

    by SemDem on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:17:50 PM PST

  •  I remember what my Gramma said back (0+ / 0-)

    in 2000.  Poor Gramma didn't even know there was an electoral college.  

    She said, "Al Gore won the vote, but they couldn't leave it at that!  They had to bring in this electoral college!"

    RIP Gramma.  You were a great lady!

  •  Who will certify the national popular vote? (0+ / 0-)

    It may seem like a small point but there has to be a formal process for declaring the winner of the national popular vote.  If you think this idea would avoid a repeat of 200, I say on the contrary-we would have 51 hanging/dimpled chad fights on our hands.  Gore won the popular vote by 0.49%.  Half a point is the threshold for recounts in many jurisdictions.  So who orders 51 recounts?  Or will each party go through and try to pad their own numbers in each and every state?

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by Spider Stumbled on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:13:54 PM PST

    •  I hear you, but... (0+ / 0-)

      I actually held this very same opinion as the reason to keep the electoral college until just recently, and it seemed like I was the only one. At least the electoral college quarantined the 2000 recount fiasco to Florida, whereas under a national popular vote, if the nation were split by just a few hundred votes, lawyers and recounts would plague us all. But as messy and horrifying as that prospect is, at least it would not structurally advantage any one party. What Republicans are proposing now, however, is clearly undemocratic. I'd rather have a nonpartisan system with a risk of lawyers, rather than a neat and tidy system that gives the Republican the presidency in an orderly and stress-free fashion every four years.

    •  Each State - Same as Now (0+ / 0-)

      Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site at
      http://www.archives.gov/...

      The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) provides:
      "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."[Spelling as per original]

      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 common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College.  In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

      Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states.  Existing federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).  

      The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President.  No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.  

    •  Recounts Are More Likely Now (0+ / 0-)

      The current presidential election system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely, not less likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000, a recount in Florida would not have been an issue.

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

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

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

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

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

      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.
      “It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

      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 57 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

      The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.  With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.  In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

  •  oh, great. prog activism against the biggest radio (0+ / 0-)

    stations in every state spewing coordinated pro GOP lies 24/7 from radio stations endorsed by university sports and completely ignored by those same progressive activists.

    who's been winning that fight the last 25 years.

    why the fuck are we in this mess in the first place.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:39:12 PM PST

  •  Where is Washington State on this? (0+ / 0-)

    Reliably democratic, lots of referenda, any info?

  •  Well we know that Florida won't participate (0+ / 0-)

    in this change.

    The Florida House speaker has nixed this idea.

    http://miamiherald.typepad.com/...

    But Florida, the largest swing state, won't go along with changing the Electoral College if Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford has any say (and he has a major say).
    "To me, that's like saying in a football game, 'We should have only three quarters, because we were winning after three quarters and the beat us in the fourth," Weatherford, a Republican, told the Herald/Times. "I don't think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better."
    Not only is Weatherford opposed to the idea, fellow Republican and Florida Senate President Don Gaetz is decidedly cool to it. When asked about changing the way Electoral College votes are apportioned, Gaetz thought the entire system should be scrapped.

    President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

    by Drdemocrat on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:54:29 AM PST

  •  electoral college (0+ / 0-)

    Why is this gaining traction only in blue states?  Oh I get it!  Isolate the urban vote.   Sigh!!  Here we go again.  

  •  Please help this petition get to 100k signatures (0+ / 0-)

    We the People Petition

    Eliminate the Electoral College System in Presidential elections.

    The GOP is developing a two-tiered Electoral College system where red states would remain winner-take-all, while blue states would reward their electoral votes proportionally to that state's popular vote.

    The effect of this would be to disenfranchise voters in urban districts and give disproportionate influence to voters in rural areas. The end game is the total dominance of one party in Presidential elections.

    It is time to replace the antiquated Electoral College system and move to a popular vote to elect our Presidents.

    •  3% of US Population Could Stop an Amendment (0+ / 0-)

      To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

      To have the candidate with the most popular votes in the country guaranteed the presidency, only needs states with 138 more electoral college votes to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

      NationalPopularVote

  •  Look, bright shiny... (0+ / 0-)

    Republican gerrymandering wouldn't be worth a damn, if Washington Democrats didn't bend over backwards to alienate their own base in every behind-the-scenes action they took.  

    We are looking at a repeat of 2010, only because Democrats are content to let their own political support wither on the vine.

    Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

    by Big River Bandido on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 08:14:18 AM PST

  •  A fair-sounding but sly tactic... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Oh Mary Oh

    On the face of it, allocating electoral votes by district, with 2 going to the state winner, SOUNDS fair because the electoral vote in theory becomes more proportional to the actual popular vote...
     ...until you realize how ridiculously gerrymandered the Congressional districts became after 2010 in favor of the GOP, thereby rigging the system  (Romney would have won the EV under this plan, despite losing by millions in the popular vote).
         The Virginia plan is even worse because the extra 2 EV would go to the candidate winning the most DISTRICTS, not votes.  Under this scheme, Obama would have gotten 4 EVs to Romney's 9 in Virginia, despite winning the popular vote.
         Republicans will try to spin this as being a more fair system.  They cannot be allowed to get away with it.  Presenting people with actual examples of what would have happened in 2012 can drive this home.  They would not necessarily win in 2016 if this goes into place in key states (it really depends in part on how bad their candidate is and how good the Democratics candidate is), bu they greatly increase thier chances.

  •  when will it end (0+ / 0-)

    The republicans have truly reached a pathetic level.  When you openly admit you can't win in any other way than flat out cheating.  Instead of legitimate ideas to move the country forward, they resort to tactics.  The good news is we have a chance here to change things for the better.  Let's get busy pushing this idea forward.  We may avoid another mistake like Bush.

    Growing old is mandatory. Growing up is optional.

    by Botopdawg on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 10:25:47 AM PST

Meteor Blades, skybluewater, a gilas girl, Pat K California, mickey, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Doug in SF, Sylv, DeminNewJ, Alma, TXdem, dwellscho, Yosef 52, Chi, Odysseus, hester, decisivemoment, murphy, melo, samizdat, ferg, RW, slinkerwink, roonie, theboz, wytcld, yogipohaku, Emerson, TheGreatLeapForward, Shockwave, Fabienne, Wintermute, ChicDemago, CleverNickName, SanJoseLady, genethefiend, hyperstation, DCDemocrat, Troutfishing, eeff, The Baculum King, TX Unmuzzled, xynz, azale, HootieMcBoob, Sandy on Signal, elfling, Woody, Joe B, MarkInSanFran, hubcap, niemann, lucky monkey, td, JLFinch, chipoliwog, RubDMC, rasbobbo, agoldnyc, maskling11, concernedamerican, raines, bronte17, missLotus, sponson, Silverleaf, kalihikane, wonkydonkey, annrose, nyceve, jem6x, Ian S, ask, CoolOnion, CatFelyne, Transmission, rabel, Nate Roberts, splashy, high uintas, CocoaLove, sidnora, litigatormom, Quege, recontext, manneckdesign, psnyder, hangingchad, MrSandman, TexDem, Miss Jones, businessdem, pat bunny, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, dustbin, solliges, LordMike, astronautagogo, defluxion10, chickeee, RebeccaG, Timbuk3, lcrp, 313to212, kismet, Brian82, Sophie Amrain, Lilith, dkmich, Oaktown Girl, zerelda, ybruti, Sembtex, side pocket, tomjones, ScienceMom, jcrit, xyz, rambler american, vivadissent, rolet, boran2, rmx2630, My Philosophy, oortdust, Gowrie Gal, sb, rapala, Skennet Boch, la motocycliste, Los Diablo, maybeeso in michigan, historys mysteries, Bluesee, marina, DianeNYS, denise b, ichibon, LakeSuperior, blueyedace2, yuriwho, Freakinout daily, subtropolis, stlawrence, sap, Alice Venturi, wallys son, Flint, Simplify, kefauver, ChemBob, Ajax the Greater, Dobber, Kevskos, ratzo, Byrnt, fixxit, Beetwasher, majcmb1, Sun Tzu, imfunnytoo, Ice Blue, peteri2, jane123, sunbro, Cecile, Yamara, SBandini, HiBob, wbr, distraught, Cory Bantic, Rogneid, sgary, mightymouse, Jim R, dedwords, Mother Mags, Dolphin99, hlee1169, golem, Debbie in ME, Keone Michaels, Clytemnestra, BlueInARedState, tobendaro, 8ackgr0und N015e, HoundDog, Gorette, AoT, rhetoricus, Wary, Wednesday Bizzare, kck, Lefty Coaster, NBBooks, global citizen, A Siegel, twigg, 4Freedom, alwaysquestion, Rosaura, christinebarry, Bush Bites, SadieSue, Preston S, MarciaJ720, Dinclusin, middleagedhousewife, BlueMississippi, BlueSue, democracy is coming, profh, zhimbo, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, suspiciousmind, blueoregon, kurt, ethanthej, MadMs, shaharazade, bstotts, sea note, markthshark, Eryk, Nulwee, Aaa T Tudeattack, cpresley, krwheaton, ammasdarling, Tamar, One Pissed Off Liberal, bear83, john07801, bluicebank, BeninSC, xgz, peagreen, wa ma, camlbacker, Debs2, Lysis, SemDem, puakev, yoduuuh do or do not, LillithMc, Richard Lyon, david mizner, Dave in Northridge, dclawyer06, certainot, deepeco, sfbob, newpioneer, TerribleTom, NoMoJoe, HCKAD, ca democrat, Barry Allen, letsgetreal, wilderness voice, SeaTurtle, bobswern, jhop7, uciguy30, Timmethy, leonard145b, madgranny, oxon, 123man, MKinTN, TX Freethinker, kingneil, amyzex, MikePhoenix, zerone, OleHippieChick, Sixty Something, Senor Unoball, Arlys, bythesea, filby, jakebob, jamess, Lujane, TomFromNJ, tofumagoo, hwmnbn, MrJayTee, dewley notid, Jeff Y, VirginiaBlue, alnep, temptxan, petulans, Notreadytobenice, emidesu, DixieDishrag, Uncle Bob, Karl Rover, Al Fondy, JamieG from Md, Mayfly, HoosierDeb, billybam, sydneyluv, dzog, humanunit, JBL55, prettygirlxoxoxo, Bule Betawi, pileta, Rhysling, McGahee220, rubyclaire, cybrestrike, J M F, BennyToothpick, Dirtandiron, ARS, ceebee7, greengemini, zephyr108, banjolele, Carol in San Antonio, Nebraskablue, BlueInRedCincy, mkor7, Bindle, petral, kravitz, elziax, marzook, MKSinSA, sricki, COwoman, Shelley99, Keith Pickering, Dark UltraValia, IreGyre, KenInCO, PhotogHog, sfarkash, vadasz, 57andFemale, augustin, Flyswatterbanjo, DaNang65, clifmichael, citisven, Larsstephens, Words In Action, ruscle, Botopdawg, commonmass, smileycreek, FogCityJohn, willynel, David PA, icemilkcoffee, dorkenergy, The Jester, NJpeach, marcus38, eXtina, drainflake77, David Harris Gershon, piers, fidellio, Anima, klompendanser, Crabby Abbey, alguien, freeport beach PA, appledown, ATFILLINOIS, Eddie L, psychbob, ItsSimpleSimon, Jaimas, SoonerG, melfunction, nirbama, orlbucfan, DrTerwilliker, cocinero, DirkFunk, wwjjd, Mac in Maine, praying manatheist, According to Fish, MidwestTreeHugger, zooecium, spooks51, Catherine R, JFactor, slowbutsure, Hopeful Skeptic, UtahLibrul, asterkitty, kevin k, Nicci August, FightingRegistrar, deeproots, NormAl1792, CoExistNow, nezzclay, Greek Goddess, ripeorangesound, marleycat, coffeeprocessingmachine, Liberal Lass, thomask, createpeace, marshstars, peregrine kate, PhilJD, Caddis Fly, randomfacts, Marihilda, Hayate Yagami, blue aardvark, Miggles, SteelerGrrl, just another vortex, DRo, Mentatmark, Lucy2009, Auriandra, No one gets out alive, longtalldrink, YaNevaNo, SuWho, quill, Heart n Mind, sawolf, DeadHead, Williston Barrett, IndieGuy, orpurple, effervescent, a2nite, JGibson, FreeSpeaker, Horace Boothroyd III, Bluewater9, Mr Robert, edebs, chicagobleu, peachcreek, reginahny, BRog, doroma, OllieGarkey, sexgenderbody, cassandracarolina, james321, Noddy, avsp, arizonablue, Denver11, rat racer, Victim of Circumstance, ItsaMathJoke, Glen The Plumber, pashber, peptabysmal, Robynhood too, CalBearMom, Captain Chaos, TheLawnRanger, Ray Pensador, Steve Canella, Lily O Lady, Blue Bell Bookworm, Chaddiwicker, ForestLake, nomandates, atana, countwebb, argomd, MrBigDaddy, poopdogcomedy, SanFernandoValleyMom, goodpractice, weck, culturememe, Alhambra, Jollie Ollie Orange, Icicle68, Smoh, nice marmot, BadKitties, ET3117, shieldvulf, Blazehawkins, marcr22, Kay Observer2, MBishop1, Jim Tietz, martianexpatriate, WFBMM, skepticalcitizen, Mark Mywurtz, RUNDOWN, sfinx, WithHoney, Pistoche, Tronsix2, GeekGurl2000, sensetolisten, citylights, pierre9045

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site