By The Right Scoop


Eric Bolling suggested tonight on Hannity that the Electoral College is becoming a problem because of the magnitude difference between the Electoral College vote and the popular vote by which Romney lost the election. But Hannity fired back saying you absolutely can’t go with the popular vote because people the more populous states like California and New York would come out in droves.

Watch:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://twitter.com/toobguy Charles McLaughlin

    If the states would drop the winner take all rule the popular and EC votes would likely more closely align. Also, this would lessen the impact of CA and NY. Some of us Cali’s are conservative and it pains us to not see this reflected in the vote.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1396855720 Brian Jones

      Pains me for sure! Lancaster, CA!

      • FutureOnePercent

        Also in Lancaster, CA! It seems to be one of the few Republican places in California, even though that is quickly changing… the riff-raff of Los Angeles has been moving here for the last decade.

        • http://twitter.com/skooter1952 Stan

          tell em to go back to the squalor they came from!!!!!

        • Billy Vmax

          I’m in Auburn,CA Placer County and I think All the Republicans and Republican issues won here.

          • http://twitter.com/toobguy Charles McLaughlin

            Unfortunately not down the hill in Sac – awful blue here! :(

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            My favorite place and I’m considering moving there. My sister and Dad live there and McClintock is my favorite. I donate heavily to him.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1396855720 Brian Jones

          Yeah, but we’ve been fighting it. ESPECIALLY when it comes to Section 8 Housing and Gang Enforcement. Rex Parris has been really good in this regard…probably the ONLY Democrat I actually like to vote for (although from what I understand he switched to Republican during the Reagan years since the Dems no longer fit HIS platform)!

        • http://www.facebook.com/bob.hanrahan.33 Bob Hanrahan

          One reason I moved out of the state this past August. California is self-destructing. Very sad to see. I know so many great people there who do not deserve what the state government and San Francisco and Los Angeles are doing to the state. County by county, CA is a red state…but the red counties do not have the population centers that the blue counties do.

        • http://www.facebook.com/markallentunney Mark Allen Tunney

          Lancaster is a big meth lab?

      • BabyMal

        Temecula! Riverside county was red, thankfully.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

          Actually more of California is red than people think. A lot more.

          • BabyMal

            San Diego used to be red. No longer.

            • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

              Because of illegal immigration.

        • http://www.facebook.com/bob.hanrahan.33 Bob Hanrahan

          That is from where I moved.

      • giomerica

        …Pains me in Lancaster, NY! (No kiddin’ – I really do live there)

    • SaraPFan

      Yes. I was thinking why can’t it be proportional like it is in during the primaries in some states?

      • http://twitter.com/Kellyatthebeach Kelly Whaley

        Or like Maine and Nebraska.

      • http://twitter.com/volgeek Tim Jaggers

        The reason why EC delegates are winner take all is because we are supposed to have a limited federal government that only handles issues that effect states as a whole, like treaties and national defense, while the States handle the issues that effect the people. In other words, the States govern the people and the federal government governs the States. So when it is time to replace the President, we have an election where the states decide who will represent them at the actual election of the President, i.e., The Electorial College. Each State has to decide which of the Presidential candidates best represents the direction they feel the country should take and they can only pick one direction.

        • mike3e4r7

          Interesting. Thanks for your insight.

          I guess as it is now, with the Federal government having control over so many individual aspects of our lives that have nothing to do with the state we live in, it seems more and more that it makes sense to let the popular vote decide, but if the balance was the way the founders had originally inteded then the electoral college (with winner take all) makes more sense.

    • http://twitter.com/Kellyatthebeach Kelly Whaley

      Put me on that list, San Clemente, CA here.

    • Billy Vmax

      Yep, I agree. I support the Electoral College but not the winner take all. That process disenfranchises almost half the voters sometimes.

    • Indiana

      You mean like Nebraska and Maine do it by congressional districts? Last time around Obama got at least 1 electoral vote from there. Why don’t you start that. You Californians are good with the propositions. lol.

    • Not4TheGimmeParty

      Exactly. The winner takes all rule invalidates our votes. What also did not help is all the redistricting the Dems did before this election.

    • giomerica

      Amen, Charles… I live in NY and it’s horrible to know that no matter who I vote for (in presidential elections) won’t matter because the state always goes for the liberal democrat.

    • BarbaCat

      Same thing here in Washington State…The West side, i.e. “the Dark Side” always runs the table. Here on the Central and East side, we’re almost all Red. And yet the state is always shown as solid Blue. We’re tree fruit and wheat farming land over here where the sun actually shines. Maybe it’s all the rain that’s causing the other side to think the way they do.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

      Totally agree! SF Bay Area Conservative!!!

  • AmigoRed

    I think there should be a state electoral vote.

    • BarbaCat

      That’s an interesting idea…

      • AmigoRed

        I’d say it would have the same system as the electoral college, with 270 to win the state. With that system, Romney would have won Florida, Ohio, and PA.

  • ZM71

    What about doing something like Maine does where each congressional district gets one vote and the remaining two for each state go to whoever wins the state?

    • http://www.preciseNews.us/ Steven_W

      That would be an interesting proposition to see actual numbers for with consideration for the future and past + not caught up in the current moment – the constitution was designed to stand but states have the right to determine their delegates to the electoral college.

    • Peyton Williams

      Wouldn’t work. Gerrymandering district maps would affect outcome.

      • http://twitter.com/Kellyatthebeach Kelly Whaley

        It’s a better idea that what we have today. My vote NEVER counts at the National level.

      • SAMinPA

        @Peyton Williams – looking at my home state of PA, I don’t think the map can be gerrymandered more than it already is. Most other states are probably in the same boat, looking at the congressional election results.

  • http://twitter.com/DanaZZGarcia Dana Garcia

    The shrinkage of meaningful representative government to a handful of “battleground” states is not what the founders had in mind.

    • Orangeone

      Well said and quite accurate!

  • Joengima

    I swear people are idiotic.

    As it is right now, the Electoral Votes of the State is rewarded who wins the Popular Vote of the State. The problem we’re running into is, The Entire map of the state could be Red, except for one county where a major City is located.

    IMHO the Electoral Votes of the States should be Rewarded to whoever wins the most Counties of the State.

    • toongoon

      I like that idea.

    • CPAguy

      While that would greatly benefit Conservatives at this time, I don’t think that would be very representative.

      I think Main is on to something.

    • ChesterWalton

      So you think geography, not the people or ideas, should elect the president? You think that should be amended to our constitution?

      • Peyton Williams

        Well it doesn’t really make sense when the rural vs the city vote makes half of the people’s vote not count.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791025672 Angel Lee

      So square miles is more important than the people who fill those square miles? Huh?

      • CPAguy

        Exactly…an insane suggestion. However, I like where it comes from…we have to think liberals…we have to think about how to win.

        That is just the type of thing Conservatives should fight for. Leftist want amnesty for the same reason.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791025672 Angel Lee

          Win the honest way….by appealing to your constituents. Changing the law so that it benefits you isn’t the way to go. History can tell you that.

          • Orangeone

            Well why don’t you go talk to the MSM to tell them to tell the truth.

            Did you know about Barky Boy’s carbon tax credits going in this year and what it will do to your energy costs? NO

            Did you know 60 Minutes cut and withheld Barky Boy’s admission that Benghazi was not a terrorist attack before the 3rd debate? NO

            Did you know that Iran tried to shut down one of our drones 5 days before the election? NO

            Did you know Valerie Jarrett has been negotiating US sovernity with Iran since before the election? NO

            Need I say more?

  • johnos2112

    Uh Eric that is not the problem. Pure conservatism wins every time. The problem is who will stand up to these bastards on the left? WHO? The right has got to expose these idiots for the who they are and how they are destroying this nation.

    • tann12

      I agree with you. They refuse to accept 3 million republicans did not show up and vote because Romney was not conservative and did not represent their values.

  • marketcomp

    Eric and Sean need to know that Todd Akin was not the tea party candidate. Sarah Palin supported Sarah Steelman not Todd Akin or Brunner. Todd Akin had the support of Michelle Bachmann but not the teaparty.

    • http://twitter.com/toobguy Charles McLaughlin

      Yep, Doug Schoen also got that wrong tonight on Lou Dobbs program and no one corrected him.

      • marketcomp

        I think its an effort to portray the teaparty in a negative light. But no one is taking about the loses of the moderate republicans like Scott Brown and Linda McMann who were supported by the GOP establishment.

        • Peyton Williams

          Well Tea Party has some strong points, but those were moderates running in very liberal states, whereas akin was conservative running in conservative state.

          • marketcomp

            You are right they were moderates with no message and they failed to distinguish themselves from the democrat. For example Elizabeth Warren lied about her heritage and what worse she capitalized on the lies and it was found that she was not even a licensed attorney praticing law in Mass. But Scott Brown was not articulate but he didn’t run a campaign on national security or economic growth. He did not distinguish himself and allowed her to control the message when he was the incumbant. But, more importantly Scott Brown was elected because of the resources and efforts of the teaparty to stop Obamacare. But when he got to Senate he just voted with the democrats and the moderate republicans.

          • Orangeone

            And Atin and Mourdock didn’t duct tape their mouths.

            • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

              They aren’t the problem. The media is.

              • Orangeone

                They were absolutely part of the problem.  The media is ALWAYS looking for a gotcha on this social issue.  They needed to keep their lips closed and say the courts have spoken on the issue.  Move on.

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

                  They need to separate the personal from the practical application is a cogent manner. I will say once again abortion will be defeated in the culture as it should be. Not with a bunch of black robed unelected bats who think they are the arbiter of all things.

        • Orangeone

          Scott Brown is liberal. He lied to get the support of the Tea Party and they sucked up to Barky Boy and voted with him.

  • capelady

    What if all states electoral votes were proportional? Maybe that is the answer!

    • http://twitter.com/Kellyatthebeach Kelly Whaley

      I agree. Do it by Congressional districts within each state.

    • Orangeone

      That’s what Maine does and it works well.

  • http://www.preciseNews.us/ Steven_W

    Trust in the founders – there have been and always will be false prophets – that’s why they had house members be elected every two years.

    • Orangeone

      Too bad Governors and Senators are much too long

  • Joengima

    Why do we have the Electoral College? Because Candidates would spend their time in larger states with most of the populations.

    This aspect should be on the State Level. States are divided into Counties. However it’s population is lopsided with major cities.

    Solution is obvious, the Electoral Votes of the State should be rewarded to the Candidate who wins the Majority of the Counties in that States.

    For Example:

    Delaware has 3 Counties.

    Dem wins New Castle County
    GOP wins Kent & Sussex County

    GOP wins the 3 Electoral votes of Delaware.

    • http://twitter.com/WinstonCN Winston Smith

      Agreed

    • Peyton Williams

      Then Counties with Small Populations would rule over larger ones. For example. Loving County Texas has a population of 82 people. Under the county system, the 82 votes in loving county would be worth the same as th 4.2 million votes in Harris County Texas, which is home to Houston

    • Orangeone

      Dem = 1 electoral vote
      Rep = 2 electoral vote

      We have to stop punishing people because of where they live.

  • http://twitter.com/dsimmons917 Daniel Simmons

    Do what Nebraska and Maine do. 2 to whoever wins the popular vote, then 1 per district. Obama wins Maine and wins in both districts, he gets all 4. Romney wins Nebraska and all three districts, he gets all 5.

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavod_la_el

    The problem with what happened Is the United States and some American’s hate to face reality and that reality is that voter fraud is Run Amok and the non citizens voting has become the way to our demise as a nation…….

    We all know the election machines are owned by companies outside the United States and some are are owned by left wing nut jobs and that’s the other reason – Our electoral College is what the republic was designed to work with as the best defense against the majority ruling – I doubt the Founders ever imagined that over half the United States would hate Freedom and Constitutional guaranteed limited Government and commit as much fraud as to destroy everything they risked all for…..

    This nation is now infested with such a deep ugly disease that she’s dying a slow and now painful death…. Oh and also when a nation refuses to check for 100% sure that a president was born as the Constitution requires and not let people laugh at them till they don’t want to look the fool and say oh that just nuts he must be…. There is no real proof and never was!!!! There is however way more reasonable doubt then any proof….

    I have read so many stories about turn out during the election was high for republicans and suddenly after the loss turn out was way down from 2008-2010 for republicans… Yet story after story of voting machines taking 3 or 4 attempts to vote for the republican all 3 was voting Obama then finally the 4th is for Romney.. I bet you the republic those 3 counted and did not get removed from the total… Bottom Line get rid of early voting and back to paper ballots and get ID check for voting and always without fear fight to know who the Hel! the person elected president is for sure!!!

    • Conservachique

      Excellent points, malkiel.

    • Orangeone

      Agreed. We need paper ballots with members of the National Guard standing over the machines to ensure rabid election judges don’t expel poll watchers and do secret counts behind closed doors. And before anyone starts, this will not disenfranchise voters. It will make voters feel more comfortable that their votes won’t be tampered with.

  • http://twitter.com/uncmetsgal Carmen P

    Curious…. Any number crunchers here know what the election results would be if the entire nation used the Maine/Nebraska model as outlined above?

    • Orangeone

      I don’t but I just might take that on to see.

    • PicklePlants

      Pretty easy, it would closely reflect the House of Representatives. The only difference would come from people that “split” their vote and vote one party for President and another for Representative (rare).

      Romney would have won.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jake-Bourgeois/100001271321958 Jake Bourgeois

    what about keeping the electoral college but having districts in every state based on # of electoral votes that way not all of the electoral college representation would necessarily go to one candidate?

  • sDee

    Bolling should think about treating the cause, not the symptoms

    I think a big part of the problem is the intentional and inequitable redistribution of wealth by the Federal government to its advantage. Some states and districts get way more government spending than the taxes they put in.

    All citizens pay taxes into the Federal government at the same tax rates, but the Federal government does not not send money back to the states and districts in proportion to what was collected. If they did, why would we need to send it in the first place???

    So the Federal government uses tax revenue from red states and uses it for roads, research grants, subsides, bridges, mass transit, green energy, social welfare programs, urbanization, and entitlements in blue states – blue votes. Taxes taken from rural and suburban districts is used to buy votes in urban and minority districts.

    Same thing with unions – we all pay taxes in red states and conservative districts which are then used on bloated union contracts, kickbacks and grants that buy the votes for the politicos in Blue states and union dominated districts.

    In North Carolina, I pay for Romenycare in Massachusetts and high speed rail in California. When NC got Hussein’s Race to the Top education grant, it bought him a lot of Union and Black votes but people in the states that got no Race to Top money, paid for those votes.

    • Orangeone

      Great point. If anyone traced the stimulus you will see that it largely went to the swing states. For example, the death planning letter I rec’d in MN was postmarked PA. Now why would PA send out letters for MN’s governor. Simple, ObamaCare marketing was “awarded” to a state Barky Boy needed so he gave them jobs.

  • tann12

    The problem is republicans did not turn out our voters. Not electoral college, not immigration policy, and not abortion.
    Romney got 3 million less votes than Mccain. The base did not turn out.

    • Howzah123

      The people who stayed home will be just as responsible for the consequences as Obama and the Democrats

    • Orangeone

      I don’t agree that that is true. There is no way that the 17 precincts in PA that had the court-ordered GOP poll watchers expelled and the NBPP around voted 99% for Barky Boy. The Repub ballots were destroyed and replaced.

      • tann12

        The overall vote for Romney nationwide showed he received 3 million less votes than Mccain. Not just PA, nationwide. I don’t believe it’s fraud in every county of the US, I believe this shows the republican base did not vote this election year.
        I have my assumptions as to why.

    • NJK

      I wonder if it had anything to do with the stunt Boehner pulled at the convention, with the changing of the rules, for the seating of the delegates. They like to point the finger of blame on everyone, but themselves. If people don’t follow them, like Boehner follows Obama, like a dutiful little puppy, they blame you when it all goes wrong. I won’t go along to get along. They can either follow the people, or go the way of the Whigs.

      • tann12

        I believe it has a lot to do with the “establishment” republicans and pushing a moderate republican such as Romney during the primaries, and knocking every conservative candidate down (i.e. Perry, Santorum, Gingrich).

        I think many of the republicans were just fed up with moderates like Mccain and Romney who did not speak or believe in conservative values. I think these people sat out to teach the republican party a lesson, and cost the country a severe economic loss.

        I was disappointed that Romney didn’t win, but I knew by the speeches Romney gave about “crossing-the-aisle” to work with Democrats, he would turn off his base.

        Every time I heard him say he would work with the Dems, it would make me cringe.
        If the republicans would have rallied around a conservative who could articulate conservative principles, we would have won on Tuesday. We most certainly wouldn’t be talking about this Electoral map foolishness.

  • MaxineCA

    Can you guys tell me if the Electoral votes per state were re-adjusted after the 2010 census? The reason I ask is that CA businesses and population have been moving out by thousands per month (understandably so).

    I also wonder if our military votes from overseas have been received and counted. Didn’t NJ extend their voting until tomorrow because of the storms? Perhaps it wouldn’t make a difference but EVERY vote should be counted! I don’t know why they call the election the same night when we know full well not all votes have been counted.

    As far as the Electoral vote goes, I like the idea of proportioning it based on the popular vote in each state (i.e., in CA if 75% goes to D’s and 25% goes to R’s, the D’s shouldn’t take all of the electoral votes).

    • SavingtheRepublicdotcom

      they do take a look at my post CA when you look at it is a red state yet because of a handful of counties went to BO! Even worse with Ohio, smaller % of dem counties the state again when you look at it is RED but was handed to BO!

      • MaxineCA

        Thanks….. that is unbelievable. So what’s the answer? Do we allocate according to counties popular vote? Wow, even the CA map surprised me. Ohio has the same problem here in CA.

    • Orangeone

      If you go to Election Law Center http://electionlawcenter.com/ you can see more detailed info on military ballot struggles and other keep election info.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

      Not as of yet.

  • SavingtheRepublicdotcom

    It was designed to reduce the threat of fanatic groups organizing and controlling the vote on a wide scale. Unfortunately at the state level it still occurring!

    I pulled the final maps from Nov 6th for key states Romney needed to win. When you look at them they are red yet went to 0bama. http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/2012/11/the-problem-with-the-electoral-college-it-still-favors-mob-rule/

    PA, OH, VA, FL and even CA when you look at them are RED STATES!!!

    Somehow their has to be balance between counties with in a state. you could theoretically have an entire state vote one way yet 1 heavy populated county will make the call?!!!

    Thats insane and IS the problem.

    Beck had a map up today of Ohio showing comparison between universities and which way the counties with the universities in them voted…. wanna guess who they voted for!?

    • Joengima

      That’s why I said winner of the most Counties wins the state’s electoral votes.

  • NJK

    Eric,
    You are one of the best, but this is the problem. This is becoming very predictable.

    Military Absentee Ballots Delivered One Day Late, Would Have Swung Election For Romney

    by drew on November 7, 2012 · 186 comments

    http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/11/military-absentee-ballots-delivered-one-day-late-would-have-swung-election-for-romney/#ixzz2BhAZmiFS
    Follow us: @theduffelblog on Twitter | duffelblog on Facebook

    • MaxineCA

      That just breaks my heart and my blood boil at the same time! WTH, boxes of military ballots dropped overboard???? Once they GOT to the US, what, have they never heard of Fed Ex?

      I am so angry right now I can’t type another word without breaking the comment rules. Holy cow…… this is just BS, and can’t be accidental. Our military is much more precise than this.

    • toongoon

      I understand that duffelblog.com is a site equivalent to the onion. The story is fake.

      • MaxineCA

        Ah geez…. I can’t take anymore! Really? I asked the question in my original comment if anyone knows if our military votes were received in time and actually counted. Please, please tell me how you know the story is a fake and if the military votes were counted. Pretty please!!!!!

        • Beth

          Go to the Duffel Blog and see for yourself. Look at their other stories and their “About” page. It IS satire, like The Onion for military.

          • NJK

            I guess I should have looked better. There was a plane carrying military ballots a couple of weeks ago, that crashed. Pretty convenient. It’s pretty sad, that you question everything anymore. Just look at the video story about Benghazi. When you have a so called government willingly look you in the eye, and lie about something this horrible, the trust is gone.

        • Orangeone

          WI military ballots were never shipped. I posted this link above. J. Christan Adams is the gentleman that blew open the racism with the DOJ’v voter unit.

          http://electionlawcenter.com/

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791025672 Angel Lee

      That rumor has been proven to be untrue. Please get a better source for accurate information.

  • stage9

    Didn’t Obama still win the popular vote too?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/W5GSODWTZSKF7EPOLVUP7LFLBU Yvette

      President Obama won both the electoral vote and the popular vote.

      • poljunkie

        All the votes arent counted yet. It will probably end up very very very close re the popular vote.

        • anyonebutbarry2012

          they have to dec to certify, what i do not understand is romneys chief advisor conceding florida today , when the difference is only 55,000 votes…

          • poljunkie

            I dont understand that either.

            • anyonebutbarry2012

              sorry they have till december the states do to certify the votes.

      • Orangeone

        You mean Barky Boy? Barky Boy stole the election with his illegals. The great news, you get to pay for them!

  • detectivedick

    Jim Carvel is the Master of the Electoral College process, he was able to get Clinton into the White House with 43% of the vote. Axelrod transformed the data into Cencus tracts, Blocks and address of voters and took them to the polls to vote, you add modern technology, a 3 or 4 word message, and stupid media, redistricting, early voting and the Democrats are in Office for life.

  • GetWhatYouPayFor

    I love you Eric but you are wrong. Change the rules and the Dems will adjust their game plan and win again. The Repubs will continue to fight the significant portion of their base who want reform and the political class ousted and lose again. Romney – Ryan was your problem, not the Electoral college. Romney inspired few and Ryan was at best a net zero. Listen to Juan Williams and to the Libs to find your solution. Who do they hate the most? What group do they vilify? That is the way to go. They will pick the best opposition candidate for you every time.

    • deeme

      Got to agree, the media tore apart every candidate starting with Cain, that they feared had appeal..

  • opinionatedhermit

    “The Tea Party flipped the house in 2010 because of conservative fiscal policy. Not social issues. They should stick with that.”
    – Eric Bolling

    “I agree with you.”
    – Sean Hannity

    Don’t bring up and worry about social issues, say the so called “experts.”

    This party of mine hasn’t a damn clue about what it stands for…..

    • deeme

      To that I can say I do know what the left is all about..they are the party of death..they want U.S. to assist them with their suicides and late term abortions..They don’t understand that the party that is horrified by this, is the party that has true love for their fellow man.I guess in light of things, I’m going to change my strategy and tell them to hurry it along..LOL..I guess these last four years have hardened my heart..Probably my arteries as well since I lost my insurance and decided the heck with doctors…

    • Orangeone

      I have to agree with them. MN had a Repub legislature for the 1st time in 40 years. They did their social issues meme and now we have straight Dem House, Senate and Governor. They are already talking about doubling business taxes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=779593453 Scott LaPlante

    Sadly, no matter what we do… Florida will still mess everything up.

  • http://twitter.com/Kellyatthebeach Kelly Whaley

    I live in California. So frustrating when the polls close and at the same time the state is called. How about districting each state, like Maine and Nebraska.

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      that was bad, alaska just closed, and the race was called, thats not right, all states should count and be heard. we need a better process

    • poljunkie

      I agree- I just said the same thing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000518241783 Sue Phenow

    I thought the Electoral college was supposed to help it so smaller states have a more equal influence on the elections. Don’t understand how that is working out very well when CA has 55 and NH has 4?!?!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/W5GSODWTZSKF7EPOLVUP7LFLBU Yvette

    Nothing like a campaign loss to get some people all fired up. Lord have mercy…they are still grasping at straws. President Obama won……it’s really not that difficult. They have not said anything about this foolishness until President Obama won again.

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      don’t worry sug you’ll get your free stuff from team obama……

    • Orangeone

      You mean Barky Boy? I hope you enjoy the ObamaCareTaxes, there are 21 of them. I hope you enjoy the carbon tax credit impact on your utility bills. I hope you enjoy higher tax rates because all tax credits will be eliminated. I hope you really enjoy unemployment because employers are laying off in mass and it will continue well into 2013 so they don’t have to pay the BarkyBoy health care penalties. I truly hope you enjoy watching your family members die from cancer because the experts are leaving the USA and the doctor shortage will so be upon us. And if you are female, I hope you enjoy the butchery you will soon be subjected to under Sharia law.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rick.sanson Rick Sanson

    Popular vote alone can’t work, but perhaps a revamp of how the electoral votes are tallied?

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      something needs to be done ,,,,, a few states should not decide any election. we need uniform voter id laws also. its not fair for all states to vote and 6 decide the winner. so if it means giving up the electoral its fine with me.

  • WinMissouri

    I see the biggest problem is the media exercising the right of a free press to freely choose sides.

    They should report the facts and let the people decide.

    Debates should be Lincoln Douglas format.

    However, that would mean the electorate would have to take their eyes off facebook, twitter, texting etc and get informed on things that matter to the preservation of Freedom.

    Electoral college works, the free press has become a cancer our on Freedom.

    • deeme

      I so agree, they were the biggest problem , they had everything to do with my first five choices dropping out..

    • colliemum

      Yes indeed – and they’re already busy to ‘elect’ the GOP candidate for 2016 …

      Also, they are now peddling the untruth that Obama’s campaign had the better ground game … excuse me, but losing about 10 million votes compared to 2008 is ‘good’?

      The corrupt MSM have not done their duty in being impartial, they did not vet Obama, they worked as propaganda arm for the dems, they ‘choose’ the ‘eligible’ candidate for the GOP, twice now, and are totally blind when it comes to reporting voter fraud.

      The question about the Electoral College they now bring up is worthless.
      It’s time for us all to focus on the role the MSM have been playing and hold them to account.

  • deeme

    I admit I don’t know much about the votes..Did illegals vote..?? If they did then we will never win an election again..No one ever answers this question when I ask it..Do we just not know..>? Yes Yvette, freedom of speech and fair elections are foolishness..especially when people are reelected who should be in prison for war crimes and treason..

    http://godfatherpolitics.com/7919/is-obama-guilty-of-war-crimes-and-treason-by-gifting-libya-to-al-qaeda/

    • opinionatedhermit

      I couldn’t tell you about illegal voters, but ……

      My wife and I went to visit her 88 year old aunt the day before the election. She has some serious dementia issues but was a life long Republican.

      She told us of how she got to vote for Obama along with everyone else in the rest home. She even gave a little speech about how honest he was and all he has done for people.

      • deeme

        Great so that means they are indoctrinating the young and the old..That’s horrible…

      • Orangeone

        I heard this was going on all around the country. This is criminal.

    • Orangeone

      Yes they did. The 1.1 million “dreamers” were permitted to register and vote. MN has 2 sanctuary cities (Mpls & St. Paul) and they get Driver’s Licenses and register & vote.

      • deeme

        Well lets see so we just change the laws without even informing the American people..I hear the Republicans saying we need to reach out to hispanics and others..all the others I know are here legally and are against illegals..So if it’s U.S. citizens voting against non U.S. citizens we will never win again..end of story..between that and double counting votes…Now I see why it took me four hours to stand in line to renew my license..watch out Texas..it’s coming here big time..I gave you a like but I really don’t like it at all…lol.

        • Orangeone

          And the 11 million illegals are now demanding citizenship because they voted for Barky Boy.  Boehner will see to it happening.

  • Jake Mick

    Is it true about the reports saying the military vote didn’t count? Somebody please respond because this is shocking news and could possibly change the outcome.

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      they did not get the ballots, the plane carrying them crashed, that is what i heard, no one seems concerned…. sad

      • poljunkie

        WHAT?

        • MaxineCA

          I think that was in reference to the question if military ballots were received.

          • anyonebutbarry2012

            yes it was. the guys in afghanistan did not get any ballots

            couple of the fathers of some of the soldiers were on the news, monday tuesday, saying their kids told them, they did not get any ballots.

          • poljunkie

            Thanks. OUTRAGE. Why couldnt they set up line line voting like they did in NJ?

            • anyonebutbarry2012

              i wondered that myself, that is also why i wondered why romney was so quick to concede.

            • Orangeone

              That wouldn’t serve Barky Boy’s purpose. He and Axelrod decided who could vote. What are they going to do? If they object, they are kicked out of the military with a dishonorable.

              For God’s sake, the Team 6 Navy Seals were disciplined because of a video game. Resounding theme? The same team that took out OBL. Payback is beginning.

              http://news.yahoo.com/seven-members-navys-seal-team-six-disciplined-video-040839518–abc-news-politics.html

        • Orangeone

          Plane with ballots “crashed”. Many states didn’t send, like WI. Coincidence? No.

          • poljunkie

            I am so saddened, stunned and appauled by this. My husband ( A Veteran) is so angry I cant tell you, Orangeone. I cant believe this has happened- If it were the other way, there’d have been riots.

    • Orangeone

      Go to Christian’s website:

      http://electionlawcenter.com/

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.wilson.3511 Jeffrey Wilson

    I live in Orange, Dem pals in LA county. My Republican vote meant something for my congressman Royce, but does nothing for the national ticket.

  • poljunkie

    California’s electorial votes should be split like Maine’s, and Nebraska.

    It doesnt seem fair that the entire 55 are awarded based on the majority of liberal voters when there are pockets of conservative voters., They should re-map it and split it into 3 segments.
    Report it seperatly.

  • http://twitter.com/DaveBorlandPhD Dave Borland

    i would be ok to give EC votes according to congressional districts

  • odin147

    Electoral college is not the problem immigration is, the voters that did not turn out would have turned out if Romney had run on immigration. Our immigration system is broken, we are importing future liberal voters and killing conservatism from within. Those voters know this. If Romney had run on a temporary moratorium on immigration except for highly skilled hard working foreigners, until the economy rebounded and debt was balanced he would have won in a landslide. If he had run on securing the borders he would have won.

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      its not our only issue, though it is a issue that has been put on the back burner for 30 years or more., and now needs to be dealt with. i do not agree with giving away free, to them or anyone, but something has to be worked out.

    • Orangeone

      Stop with the immigration. Reagan granted amnesty to millions so that should have “bought” loyalty. They are dems and always will be. We need to intern & return each and every one of them and all of their offspring.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/33EC47Q25OSTFHXMHGK2L3C4X4 peter

    Im really surprised with all thats going on in Californa that the people still like voting Democratic

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      wait till the gas prices go higher, taxes higher, even more lay offs., no money for 100 weeks unemployment. more underemployment,. some people will truly be hurting even more. but its not our fault, they get what they vote for.

      • poljunkie

        I was just watching Fox Business. The guy on there was saying what he was going to do to hedge the upcoming tax problems and health care issues. OUTSOURCE, and keep workers under full time.
        + a few other things.
        Gee thats great. Wow, He just spelled it out.

        Frankly, I liked Romneys plan and ideas better.

        • anyonebutbarry2012

          imo, going to be a whole lotta hurting going on. there are so many lay offs scheduled. this obamacare, the cost is so high. way to many things coming down the road, that are going to be bad for many. there will be voter remorse for some. they should have paid attention.

        • Orangeone

          Outsourcing takes the EE count down. Reducing hours takes the count down. Paying minimum wage excludes them from the count. MN hotel industry is already laying off and dropping wages back to minimum to get out of the penalties. This is a GREAT move!

          • poljunkie

            I was surprised he was sitting on FOX BUSINESS saying this.
            He was clearly shaken by the Romney loss.-

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/33EC47Q25OSTFHXMHGK2L3C4X4 peter

    why do people vote Democratic if they dont like where there state is going

    • Orangeone

      Vote freebies and punish the wealthy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tony.champlin.39 Tony Champlin

    The electoral college is not the problem. California is the problem. The state has to large a percentage of the population. It has over 50 million people represented in the Senate by to ding bats (I apologize to ding bats). This is why it is going bankrupt. It is not going to get better until California is broken into 3 to 5 states.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791025672 Angel Lee

      Ronald Reagan won California. It wasn’t a problem then.

  • Diogenes_wy

    All states should have the same number of electoral votes and winner takes all. This way the smallest population state (WY) would have the same amount of clout as the more populous states (NY, CA). Getting elected then would be a matter of the candidates convincing a plurality of voters in each and every state to vote for them. Of course, one candidate could win the popular vote and still lose the electoral vote which can and does happen under the current system which rewards an inordinate number of electoral votes to a winning candidate because of large urban areas.

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      well we need to do something that is more fair. every state needs to be heard.

    • Dark_Laser

      So a large number of people’s votes should count less because they live close to each other? And when while complaining about the electoral college and big states, you fail to mention Texas even though it’s bigger than NY? Sounds like conservative butthurt to me.

  • poljunkie

    We can go back and forth about votes and voting:

    This is why we lost:

    New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that he had called President Obama to congratulate him on his win in the 2012 presidential election — but has only sent an e-mail to Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for whom he campaigned heavily earlier this year.

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      christie is a closet dem, he did not help matters, but it was a combination of things that happened. imo. i still think there was votes taken away from romney, thru some hacker fraud, but there were other things also. i have a hard time believeing the majority want 4 more years of this corrupt admin. seriously. getting a free cell phone and some food stamps is not the life.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791025672 Angel Lee

      Romney lost because he wasn’t the best candidate, President Obama’s campaign was far superior and republicans didn’t vote. Don’t blame Christie, blame yourselves and blame Romney.

      • anyonebutbarry2012

        obama’s nasty campaigning was superior?
        its interesting that after the mur der of 4 americans in Benghazi, preventable mur ders, people would vote in the person responsible for not sending help, for telling others who were willing to help to stand down.

        • poljunkie

          YEP. Imagine if it were in reverse and Romney had been the President and Obama were the challenger. WOW the media, the press, the radio stations would have been hammering home Benghazi morning noon and night.
          But King Obama gets a pass.
          AND then 50% of the electorate votes for him.

          To be fair tho’ those voters—they dont even know what “a” Benghazi is. Then think it is like Benihani Restaurant or something.

          • anyonebutbarry2012

            it will come back to bite them, sure it effects us too, but we can make plans for wht may come, they do not seem bright enough to even do that. but then barry going to save them all with free phones and food stamps. interesting though notice NJ still having limited gas, power out in many places, now a huge snow storm and no barry there for another photo op. at least him and christie have a warm house to sleep in tonite…..

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791025672 Angel Lee

              Apparently, you’ve never experienced a natural disaster before. Recovery is not instantaneous. I think the organizations there to assist are doing their best to get things restored as soon as possible. I was there last weekend helping. Patient is needed from all.

              • Orangeone

                FEMA closed their offices. FEMA ran out of bottled water. FEMA didn’t install portable bathrooms. Yeah right. Keep drinking the kool-aid but I would be worried about what might be in the water used, especially if it came from NY or NJ.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791025672 Angel Lee

              Prayers are needed, cynicism and judgement are not.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791025672 Angel Lee

          That’s right. His campaign was much superior. Furthermore, your assumption about Benghazi is an uninformed one. Until the facts have been laid out by someone other than Fox News, it’s not worth discussing.

          • Orangeone

            Why don’t you go watch the 60 Minutes tape that was conveniently unaired until after the election. Why don’t you go ask Barky Boy for a copy of the LIVE video feed they watched and celebrated when Americans were murdered. Better yet, why don’t you ask Barky Boy to be the next Ambassador.

            And No I don’t watch Fox News. i watched the Congressional testimony on C-SPAN and it came right out of Barky Boy’s spokespersons’ mouths.

      • poljunkie

        I played ping pong with you last night. I told you how I felt about Obama, the people who voted for him, and why I think many of them did….. and about Romney. If you dont remember- go back to the thread.

        Christie is a tool. He went overboard. He provided Obama with photo ops that gave him an opportunity. If Christie were thinking he wouldnt participated on that level.

        In my view, the only way Christie can win an election ever again is to switch parties.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791025672 Angel Lee

          Don’t remember you. I play ping pong with quite a few and I visit quite a few comment threads. Regardless, my opinion remains the same, don’t place the blame on Christie. He didn’t appear to be too fond of Romney in the first place. Nor did many other republicans. http://bit.ly/RkuZBV

          • poljunkie

            It turns out Christie, is for Christie. He had his nose out of joint because he wasnt chosen as VP and when the opportunity came around to play political football and play the get even game he decided to take a jab. It worked. For opening the door and bending over so to speak, to Obama, the week before a close election, he got to hug Bruce Springsteen. Which made him cry. Oh, so sweet.
            He thinks this will further bolster him to the President. Maybe it will?

            I heard Cory Booker is thinking of challenging him now for the Gov position. Hmmmm Cory Booker, or Chris Christie? Thats easy. Even as a Republican, Cory Booker, seems like the better man to me.

            I told you last night that I felt Romney wasnt the most perfect candidate. Personally I would have chosen someone more conservative. You called him flawed. Obama is highly flawed as well. Then you called Obama suave. You may view him as suave and strategic, but I see him as cunning and manipulative.
            The problem for those running against him is that he has the corrupt media running interference for him. You are right- his campaign team plays the game pretty well. … Although i’m not certain thats a compliment.

            Gov Romney is a good man, and would have been fine for the job. He could have advanced our country and pulled us out of the economic mess we are in, and the one we are barreling toward. You and I have different visions for our country. I want one where we all work hard, aspire to saving for a rainy day, less oversight, less government, less regulation and most of all Freedom.

            What irks me the most is that the majority of Obama voters said they didn’t like the direction the country was going under Obama- They were worried about their future….but they voted for him anyway, because they could “relate” to him. Watching him on the View, seeing him dance with Ellen, listening to him with Jayz ….Party before Country. He is a celebrity…I want a leader.

      • Orangeone

        Barky Boy’s campaign had 4 years to perfect voter fraud. Taking absentee ballots into nursing homes telling folks how to vote is illegal. But what’s new. Barky Boy is illegal himself. I cannot wait for the impeachment to begin. Congress waited until Nixon was re-elected. Then comes the treason trials and all of his supporters will be found and prosecuted as well, like you.

  • Thomas Leo

    Bolling is insane. I would NEVER want the popular vote to decide the presidency. Otherwise the most populous cities will always win, and that means Democrats would always win.

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      the electoral has done the same thing, 6 states decide the vote. so how is that fair?
      nevada for the most part is conservative. except for clark county/ vegas. so vegas because its more populated decides the whole state. philedelphia decides it for pa. how is that right?

    • toto

      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.

      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. 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. 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.

  • odin147

    Conservatism will be a permanent majority if what happened in the Clint Eastwood movie Gran Torino happens in real life. There are so many immigrants in this country who don’t know about conservative principles of self reliance, work ethic, working with your hands and mind. Many hispanic people work menial jobs, like lawn mowing, but I don’t think they understand what free markets mean, there is a lot of education that is needed now.

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      there is a difference between immigrants and illegals. the illegals, are from all over too, many from china. a good % work our system, and think we owe them. that is not good.

  • Beth

    Go here,
    http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Electoral-College-Team
    and listen to Richard Epstein demolish all folly of dismantling the Electoral College. I mean BESIDES the obvious argument of not fiddling with the constitution every time we have a result that displeases us (duh!).
    Seriously, y’all. Stop taking the evil libs’ bait with this anti-EC nonsense.
    http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Electoral-College-Team

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      what evil libs bait??

      this is a thread, people are debating having a discussion.

      if you want only certain states to determine elections, that is nice for you,.

      personally, many would like all states to be heard and counted. how to get that done remains to be seen.

  • Billy Vmax

    Eric, You are the man, but you are wrong on this point. If the popular vote elected a President the smaller states would have no say. It’s bad enough for me in California, I
    have no say here with all the libs.

    Eric, Look up and read why the Electoral College was instituted in the first place.
    I am sure you will change your opinion.

    • toto

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

      With National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, 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.

      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.

      Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

      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 26% of the nation’s votes!

  • http://twitter.com/mill8994 Ryan

    We should modify the electoral collage to make the votes awarded by county instead of state. The the total number of electoral votes and divide by the number of counties and the answer is the amount of the electoral vote that the candidate could win per county. This would stop the large cites from deciding who all the electoral votes of the state go for, further moving the electoral vote closer to reflecting the popular vote with out losing the protection of the electoral collage. the largest issue that we are facing is the current campaign mode lets 7 states decide who is president, awarding electoral votes by county would solve this issue.

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      that is something that could work

  • TLaMana

    You don’t drop the Electoral College and run on the popular vote.

    What you do is force all states to go to proportional votes. This way my state of Nevada wouldn’t have been disenfranchised by two counties forcing the rest of the state to vote for Obama. You split by districts and my state would have only given Obama 2 votes and Romney 4.

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      something like that can work. something needs to be designed so that all the states are heard, states with only 3 el votes like alaska do not even matter. candidates never bother to even go there.

    • toto

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

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

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

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

      A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

      It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

      Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

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

  • SurfinCowboy

    A popular vote, like an Electoral College vote, has problems. I believe that the Electoral College vote has less than that of the popular vote for the following two reasons.

    First, under a popular vote, fraud (if there is any), is restricted to affecting only the State in which it occurs. For example, if one million votes are fraudulent in Rhode Island, then only 3 EVs will be the result. Under a system of popular vote, those one million votes will affect the entire nation’s results. Add to this the ability for nation-wide fraud to affect an election. If there were two million fraudulent votes in California and another 500,000 in New York it would do little to change an outcome using the EV system, but in a popular vote system the effects can be quite profound.

    Secondly, under a popular vote, the result is not swing states, but swing cities. The densest areas become the places where the most electioneering occur. Sometimes people complain that Ohio, Florida, etc. are too important. Well, unless you are a Democrat, you should be opposed to the idea of the cities of America picking the President. Rural areas will be ignored. Imagine campaigns that focus on the Eastern and Western seaboard and ignore the rest of “flyover” country.

    There is one idea I do not see tossed around that often, and that is doing what Nebraska and Maine do – proportional EVs. The winner of the popular vote in the state gets two EVs (from the Senators), and the remaining EVs are doled out as per who wins what Congressional Districts. This has a few interesting effects.

    Suddenly a state like California matters. This ends the winner-take-all that is currently in place. It could, in fact, wipe out a the effects of a state like Ohio going entirely for one candidate. No longer would 55 votes just go to the winner.

    This also takes power away from the cities that control most states and spreads the electorate out over the entirety of a state.

    The biggest effect is that it is just more democratic. I live in CA now, and it stinks to know that there is no hope for my vote on a national level. I vote and work on propositions, initiatives, etc., but as per the Presidency? My vote matters not.

    Right now, the only real movement that is gaining any traffic is what Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, D.C., Vermont, and California are doing with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. These states have pledged to give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. They currently total 132.

    This movement is once again flawed in that fraud is nationalized in its effects, cities become the focus, and rural areas and states become ignored.

    All things considered, the Electoral College system is Federalism and small “r” republicanism at work. The best attribute it has is the ability to neutralize the effects of voter fraud, followed by limiting the power of urban centers. Beware any discussion of changing this system.

    Ok, my rant is over. :)

    • anyonebutbarry2012

      thoughtful response

    • toto

      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?

      • SurfinCowboy

        You made my point in a way. In 1960 the nationwide margin of more than 100,000 would be overturned with merely 2000 or so votes per state. In fact, one could swing more than 1,000,000 votes by getting 20,000 fraudulent votes per state. The ability for fraud to affect an election is huge in a popular vote case.

        Equally huge is catching the fraud, for all fifty states would need to have a recount or check their votes to locate the fraud – if then. In your second case of Florida, there was a recount, limited to one state. Very simple and very easy compared to the massive task of a nationwide recount. Odds are it would not happen, further encouraging fraud.

        I contend that, especially with swing states, there are many eyes watching for fraud – you go national popular vote, and there are never enough eyes to watch for fraud. It would be far far easier to steal an election with a national popular vote.

        Now, we are just talking fraud here.

        No mention was made of how the Federal government would have to have control over the system of elections (right now it is done on a state-by-state basis), how the cities would gain power over the rural areas, and how a popular vote in general goes against the concepts of Federalism.

        2000 is an extreme case. Think of the elections that can be so easily swayed with fraud if it was national. 1960: 2,000 votes per state, 1968: 10,000 votes per state, 1976: 6,000 votes per state, 2000: 5,000 votes per state, 2004 40,000 votes per state, and 2012: 60,000 votes per state.

        The electoral college gives the minority more power than a democracy, it is easier to deal with close elections, it shields fraud from expanding from beyond a state, it makes rural and urban centers important, shields elections from the effects of weather/natural disaster, and leaves the details of how elections are run and votes counted to the state – therefore closer to the individual.

        Yes there are problems with the EC, but there are more with a popular vote.

        Democracies are dangerous and easily corruptible, that is why we have a republic.

        If we can keep it.

        • toto

          We have seen a mere 537 votes in just one swing state determine a presidential election.

          National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

          Florida’s governor, legislature, and SOS in 2000 were Republicans.

          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?

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

          There is nothing incompatible between differences in state election laws and the concept of a national popular vote for President.

          Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are comingled and simply added together, irrespective of the fact that the electoral-vote outcome from each state was affected by differences in state policies, including voter registration, ex-felon voting, hours of voting, amount and nature of advance voting, and voter identification requirements.

          Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote compact, all of the people of the United States are impacted by the different election policies of the states. Everyone in the United States is affected by the division of electoral votes generated by each state. The procedures governing presidential elections in a closely divided battleground state (e.g., Florida and Ohio) can affect, and indeed have affected, the ultimate outcome of national elections.

          The current 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.

          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.

          • SurfinCowboy

            “Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?”

            A smaller effort? The very rare instance of 2000.
            A large, nationwide effort which is not hard to imagine?

            National Popular Vote is more vulnerable. All the fraud across All states is added and effects total.

            “We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.There is nothing incompatible between differences in state election laws and the concept of a national popular vote for President.”

            Not in a national popular vote. It would be federalized and run by the federal government. If not, then the after the first national vote that happens ever person in every state would have standing to sue the other states for not having the same standards as their own state. Equal protection, etc. would lead to the court ruling that one standard system be used, and run, at the Federal level. Bam, the Feds are running your elections. The only way this is avoided is with the State’s having the rights under the Constitution to chose how they select their electoral college members, if you take away the college, the states must all have equal representation, therefore standard election policies set at the federal level. More corruption, less local oversight.

            “The current system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely, not less likely.”

            Yes, and it makes it more likely that it will be on a STATE level. The system you propose makes it more likely that elections will be stolen year after year and you will never know because the fraud is spread across the land under a federal system with no local control.

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

            Only because it is true and disrupts your argument.

            “no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000″

            Except they would have. There would have to be a line for a recount, no? Total votes in 2000: 105,405,100. Difference: 543,895. 543,895 / 105,405,100 = 0.51% So no recount right? Ok, how many fraudulent votes did it take for there to be a winner again? Roughly 11,000 per state. Considering the possible fraud we are hearing about in certain urban areas right now (easiest place for fraud) that is very doable. We get no recount, the feds run the show, we get snookered year after year.

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

            I would say “Recounts are far more likely to be easily resolved and carried out in the current system”

            Plus, winner-take all is a decision that states make. Some don’t – Nebraska and Maine. Those states make their decisions – federalism again.

            “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.”

            Yeah. Because it is on a state level, not a national one, and we give power and respect to the states in federalism.

            “artificial crises and unnecessary disputes”

            They happen no matter what system. The difference is under the electoral college, the power is closer to the individual and problems are dealt with at a state level.

            “Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections…”

            That doesn’t matter. The national vote is open to massive massive fraud as previously stated. Who cares if there is no recount when the election was already stolen?

            You can cite studies, and I can site studies. The fact is that a national popular vote would take away power from the state and the individual and vest it in a centralized federal authority and it would be open to massive fraud, favor urban areas, and trivialize smaller states – flying in the face of federalism.

            • toto

              The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

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

              Enacting National Popular Vote, to award their state’s electors to the winner of the national popular vote, is a constitutional decision that states make using 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.” Some states won’t enact thte bill. States make their decisions – federalism.

              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.

              A National Popular Vote would not be federalized and not be run by the federal government. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.There is nothing incompatible between differences in state election laws and the concept of a national popular vote for President.

              Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are comingled and simply added together, irrespective of the fact that the electoral-vote outcome from each state was affected by differences in state policies, including voter registration, ex-felon voting, hours of voting, amount and nature of advance voting, and voter identification requirements.

              Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote compact, all of the people of the United States are impacted by the different election policies of the states. Everyone in the United States is affected by the division of electoral votes generated by each state. The procedures governing presidential elections in a closely divided battleground state (e.g., Florida and Ohio) can affect, and indeed have affected, the ultimate outcome of national elections.

              The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only restricts a given state in the manner it treats persons “within its jurisdiction.” The Equal Protection Clause imposes no obligation on a given state concerning a “person” in another state who is not “within its [the first state’s] jurisdiction.” State election laws are not identical now nor is there anything in the National Popular Vote compact that would force them to become identical. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways.

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

              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.

        • toto

          With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

          The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

          The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

          80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

          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.

          Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections

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

          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.

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

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

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

          • SurfinCowboy

            “With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.”

            Yes, empower the states. The NPV OBVIOUSLY takes power away from the states. Population matters, not State lines. All the western states (Barring California) have muted power. NPV empowers urban centers and allows popular say to trump states. It is unconstitutional to boot.

            “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)”

            The states are perfectly withing their Constitutionally granted powers to do what they have done. I would like to see a proportional EV system by the states like Maine and Nebraska do, but that is up to the states themselves.

            “80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.”

            Yeah, that’s why I like the proportional distribution of EVs. But the states have to choose to do that. We could amend the constitution to do that, but I would rather the people see the reason for, and encourage the change themselves. Oh – and only about 110 million people vote.

            “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.”

            Just like policies concerning urban areas would be the most important in NPV

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

            Sounds like it has to be an Amendment to me. If we follow the Constitution. I like the idea of proportional EVs, but this “Bill” you speak of is merely a compact between select states that total 270 electoral votes. Is it surprising that these state that have signed on are ALL democrat-leaning states? If you don’t smell the rat. I do.

            “Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.”

            Yeah, shifting the power to urban centers. No power to states, power to cities. Campaigns will end up focusing on “swing cities” instead of swing states. Fraud will be nationalized and effect elections more.

            “the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .””

            Why do you say this after initially arguing that the “winner take all” method was not intended by the FFs? Obviously, from what you just quoted, they intended to let the Legislatures choose how the state appoints electors.

            For the reasons I have stated before I say again. The national popular vote is a bad idea. The NPV state-compact (which you mention) is even worse. It is a compact between a few of the states that dictate an outcome to the many. It is not done in any bi-partisan manner. It leads to swing cities and national fraud. Urban centers get visits, rural do not. “Fly-over country” will be an accurate description during campaigns.

            • toto

              Now, 80% of states and voters are politically irrelevant, “flyover country”, in presidential campaigns.

              Policies important to the 80% of citizens in non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

              The National Popular Vote 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.

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

              As with winner-take-all laws, or your proposed proportional method, states are perfectly within their Constitutionally granted powers to “appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” using the National Popular Vote bill. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The state legislatures enacting National Popular Voter are choosing how their states appoints electors, to the winner of the national popular vote.

              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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

              It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

              Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

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

              With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome and policies.

              16% of Americans live in rural areas.

              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.

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

              • SurfinCowboy

                “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.”

                Now you are talking in circles. I already debunked everything you have said, and have shown the various problems in NPV that far outweigh the current system.

                I will again say that EC is not perfect, and I would like to see all states use proportional representation (but I don’t control all states, nor would I want to – that is not federalism) in the distribution of their electoral college votes, but the NPV is not the way to go.

                You will not get over 2000. Yes there are years that the winner of the popular vote will not win – it’s rare.

                If you want more, go back above and read what I wrote. You continue to repeat yourself, make statements that are against your own statements, and do not approach the negatives that I have mentioned.

                For you it is NPV or the highway.

                By the way, the only way that NPV will pass, is by a plurality of a State’s legislature. It passed in California, even though 40+% didn’t want it. So when you get your states together and they have the EVs to decide elections – it will still be stomping on those who didn’t want to do such a thing. Sounds like proportional EV distribution is far better.

            • toto

              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?

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.littau Chuck Littau

    Oh ya… Lets do that… Lets change the electoral college so that only the big cities matter… and only the areas concentrated with progressives will for ever decide our elections…. Yep… that sounds like a winner…. ARE YOU NUTS! Anybody who suggest such things is NOT a constitutional conservative… Do you know nothing about why we have an electoral college? Beware anytime people start using the word “FAIRNESS” It always leads to darkness and death …. But really it doesn’t matter because we will NO LONGER have such elections…. I seriously doubt BO will ever leave office. Dictators always find a way to stay in power.. He has been writing his own laws for a while now… and congresses is irrelevant. Remember when our side said they were going to DE-fund Obamacare, but you can not do that if they refuse to obey the law and pass budgets. They have not passed a budget in over three years… Our country is gone… And everyone is side-tracked and blaming and asking how we can change or did we need another candidate… UN-believable how dumb our side is acting… IT IS THE MEDIA STUPID! We have NO hope if we do not focus all our attention on defeating the MSN…. I always thought was a mistake and stupid for conservatives to rally at town-halls and other places and completely ignore the real problem of the state controlled media. Look at how they treated Todd Akin… Ok he might be a slimeball… but he did apologize. On the other side we have slimeballs like Alan Grayson who has said hundreds of things far worse than what Todd Akin said… Oh and did you notice FL just RE-ELECTED Grayson… that’s right he is back. If you ask me, between Todd Akin and Alan Grayson I give the slimeball award to Grayson, but you see the MSN loves Grayson.. Are you starting to see our problem…. It has NOTHING to do with Obama or Libs or Dems… OUR PROBLEM IS THE MEDIA WHO EMPOWERS DARKNESS!

  • carmtom13

    One way to remedy this is not give California and New York so many electoral votes. California has 55 which is to many for one state to have and controls in many ways the outcome of an election. No state should have that much control. Eric you are so wrong about that our country is a republic. Do some research.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791025672 Angel Lee

      Texas too….they have 38 electoral votes…more than New York who has 29. Florida also has 29.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791025672 Angel Lee

      How ignorant is that suggestion…they have 55 electoral votes based on their population.

    • http://twitter.com/PatricklBateman Patrick Bateman

      You are actually wrong. If you think we are a complete democracy, than that would make it so every citizen would represent themselves, we would be voting on every law, every policy change, etc. With a republic, we have a representative who does that for us. Being a democratic republic, we vote on who represents us.

  • http://twitter.com/PatricklBateman Patrick Bateman

    You know what I say, don’t drop the electoral college, reform it. It’s obvious that the system is extremely unbalanced when a select few states (Most of which swing one direction politically) can control an entire election. kind of like the Senate, every state should get one electoral vote, that way smaller states would have a say in how the election swings as well. That would balance things out in my opinion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.littau Chuck Littau

    Another thing, we did NOT lose this election! Think about it… remember how so many thought the polls were wrong and how that so many historical principles would have to be broken for Obama to win. As it turned out we are not being told the polls work correct all along, EXCEPT IN ONE AREA! Yes the one single thing the polls were consistently wrong about was Republican enthusiasm. Remember we were all told that according to the polls that Republicans were more likely to turn out and vote than Dems? But now they are telling use that TWO MILLION “LESS” Republicans voted than in 2008? I am sorry I don’t believe that!!! There were millions of votes that were never counted… and there were millions of illegal and other fraudulent voters who put BO over the top… ROMNEY DID NOT LOSE! It was taken from us. We no longer life in the same country. Like I said in my last post, I doubt BO will ever leave office.

    • http://twitter.com/PatricklBateman Patrick Bateman

      Conspiracy theorist. Obama won fair and square. I wanted Romney to win, but months ago I knew he wasn’t going to get it. People are too gullible to democrat scare tactics, and Romney was not only too nice for someone who’s running for president, but his campaign platform was also unstable. Don’t worry though, the way the presidential cycle works, unless the Republican party is in shambles in 2016, I wouldn’t doubt seeing a Republican in the white house after this term.

      • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.littau Chuck Littau

        Oh really I think Darrell Issa knows more about this subject than you do:

        Watch the whole interview here and tell me if you really think we lost this election: http://bit.ly/PENlgd

        E. D. Hill: “Do you think this administration cares about voter fraud?

        Darrell Issa: “Yes they do. They WANT voter fraud very badly. It’s part of their plan to win. It has been part of their plan to win. This is a community organizer who got to be president and he is not going to change the Chicago strips that he has. I didn’t vote for him the first time, but now I have a reason not to respect they way he has run the government the last four years.”

        E. D. Hill: “Do you think he would intentionally help voter fraud?”

        Darrell Issa: “Yes I do.

        E. D. Hill: “That is a very strong statement.”

        Darrell Issa: “I have worked with this Attorney General who is anything but transparent. But more importantly, I have watched the president claim executive privilege on, in fact, a cover-up of a crime. That hasn’t happened since Richard Milhous Nixon. This president is willing to cover-up his own crime by claiming executive privilege. That is the legacy of Barack Obama.”

        • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.littau Chuck Littau

          Wow… at last some good news… Just heard on Becks Radio program that Allen West is 300 votes ahead in the recount and will be on the radio shortly to talk to Glenn about the massive voter irregularities. Thank God Allen West demanded a recount.

  • TheAtomicMom

    The EC is there to represent the states in a Pres election. If we still stuck by the Federal system and acutally took the 10th Amenment seriously, then it would “work” better. However as the Federal govt seems to be ever expanding and consuming the states (and really, the states are letting themselves be consumed with few exceptions) the EC will be less relevant. But it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change it, and I fear if we change one thing, someone will say, “Why not change it all?” It’s quite the dilemma.

    • toto

      With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

      The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

      The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

      80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

      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.

      Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections

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

      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.

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

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

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

  • http://twitter.com/mdoug86039 Doug Mineo

    I agree with others. I’m sure the founders never envisioned that the Presidency would be decided in a few battleground States. However this is what is come down to. I voted Tuesday knowing my vote meant nothing. In my State you would not even have known there was an election. No TV, newspaper or Radio ads, no yard signs. Nothing. I agree with others proportional maybe the best answer. And from what I understand each state has the right to determine whether its winner takes all or proportional. No Constitutional Amendment required.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.littau Chuck Littau

    There were so many typo’s in my last post and the edit button would not work so here it is again corrected:
    ———————————————————
    Another thing, we did NOT lose this election! Think about it… remember how so many thought the polls were wrong and how that so many historical principles would have to be broken for Obama to win. As it turned out we are now being told the polls were correct all along, EXCEPT IN ONE AREA! Yes the one single thing the polls were consistently wrong about was Republican enthusiasm. Remember we were all told that according to the polls that Republicans were more likely to turn out and vote than Dems? But now they are telling use that TWO MILLION “LESS” Republicans voted than in 2008? I am sorry I don’t believe that!!! There were millions of votes that were never counted… and there were millions of illegal and other fraudulent voters who put BO over the top… ROMNEY DID NOT LOSE! It was taken from us. We no longer live in the same country. Like I said in my last post, I doubt BO will ever leave office.

    Read this and tell me this election was not taken from us: http://cbsn.ws/QsMBir

    • RosiesSeeingRed

      Republican enthusiasm wasn’t the only poll that was wrong. What about Romney’s double-digit lead with independents?

      What about Mia Love in Utah? She was solidly ahead in the polls — double digit numbers — for 3 solid months at least. In UTAH, which went ROMNEY. And Mia Love LOST.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/PKPFHLKVWBX7STYLKFSY4QCVF4 Frank

      Okay, I read your link. Did you? Romney and the pundits did not believe the polls. But a purely math analysis by Silver predicted the results, state by state, completely accurately. Almost all the liberal pundits predicted the result better than any of the conservative media pundits.
      Obama got massive numbers of volunteers out getting people to the vote. People waited in line for hours to vote for Obama. Huge numbers of people donated small amounts of money to Obama. Obama made better use of donations. People simply just like Obama as a person better than they liked Romney, sorta like how folks liked Reagan.
      So how did Romney not lose? Sorry, delusional ranting about fraudulent voters won’t explain how the POLLS predicted the results. Even Rassmussen had Obama with the advantage. So learn to live with a moderate Republican President, Obama.
      Good for Business, Obama. Judicial Conservative, Obama.
      Repeat after me: if you call people “takers” they will not like you. They will not vote for you. If you try to take their vote from them they will fight back … peacefully.

  • http://twitter.com/mdoug86039 Doug Mineo

    I agree with others. I’m sure the founders never envisioned that the Presidency would be decided in a few battleground States. However this is what is come down to. I voted Tuesday knowing my vote meant nothing. In my State you would not even have known there was an election. No TV, newspaper or Radio ads, no yard signs. Nothing. I agree with others proportional maybe the best answer. And from what I understand each state has the right to determine whether its winner takes all or proportional. No Constitutional Amendment required.

  • http://twitter.com/mdoug86039 Doug Mineo

    I agree with others. I’m sure the founders never envisioned that the Presidency would be decided in a few battleground States. However this is what is come down to. I voted Tuesday knowing my vote meant nothing. In my State you would not even have known there was an election. No TV, newspaper or Radio ads, no yard signs. Nothing. I agree with others proportional maybe the best answer. And from what I understand each state has the right to determine whether its winner takes all or proportional. No Constitutional Amendment required.

    • toto

      If you support the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, then you are mistaken The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

      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.

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

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

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

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

      A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

      It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

      Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

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

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.littau Chuck Littau

    Watch the whole interview here and tell me if you really think we lost this election: http://bit.ly/PENlgd

    E. D. Hill: “Do you think this administration cares about voter fraud?

    Darrell Issa: “Yes they do. They WANT voter fraud very badly. It’s part of their plan to win. It has been part of their plan to win. This is a community organizer who got to be president and he is not going to change the Chicago strips that he has. I didn’t vote for him the first time, but now I have a reason not to respect they way he has run the government the last four years.”

    E. D. Hill: “Do you think he would intentionally help voter fraud?”

    Darrell Issa: “Yes I do.

    E. D. Hill: “That is a very strong statement.”

    Darrell Issa: “I have worked with this Attorney General who is anything but transparent. But more importantly, I have watched the president claim executive privilege on, in fact, a cover-up of a crime. That hasn’t happened since Richard Milhous Nixon. This president is willing to cover-up his own crime by claiming executive privilege. That is the legacy of Barack Obama.”

  • xjesterx

    What is this with the electrical vote anyway? Those machines are rigged. We all know it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1343791573 Peter Lettkeman

    We have the popular vote because we are a representative republic. The make up of the electoral college is the same as congress. Regardless of how many people vote from a state it is about how many people they represent. The popular vote has only differed from the electoral college four times in 59 elections, and only one time in the last 123 years. That is a pretty good record. Now that I’m done defending the electoral college I will give you these statistics to chew on.
    311 Million people in the U.S.
    224 Million are of legal age to vote
    116 Million actually voted on Tuesday.
    59 Million voted for Obama
    56 Million voted for Romney
    So a little over 50% of the eligible voters actually voted, of that a little over 50% voted for Obama. So in retrospect about 26% of the nation actually voted for Obama and the other 74% either didn’t vote or voted for Romney. The answer is not changing the system it is getting more people to do their civic duty and VOTE!!!!
    If we had a popular vote the candidates would only have to campaign in the following states to defeat all the others. The combined populations of these 8 states. If you look at these and who they voted for, do you think that we would ever have anyone but a Democrat as a President ever again????
    California Dem
    Texas Rep
    New York Dem
    Florida Dem
    Illinois Dem
    Pennsylvania Dem
    Ohio Dem
    Michigan Dem.

    • http://twitter.com/royleesmithjr royleesmithjr

      I think we should demand these states that are rich (in electoral votes) do their fair share and make sure the other states have a fair shot at electing the president. We must redistribute their electoral vote wealth to the poorer states.

      • wallwatchman

        Lol!! Love it!

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/PKPFHLKVWBX7STYLKFSY4QCVF4 Frank

        There HAS been a redistribution from the rich electoral vote states to the depopulated. As a CA resident, I am not so happy that a Montana citizens vote is worth about 3 times mine. Montana: 168,843 people / EC vote.
        California: 652,614 people/EC vote.
        Those Montana voters are such takers.

    • toto

      The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

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

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

      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).

  • chatterbox365

    I’m sure Eric would not have felt the same way back in 2000.

    I used to like Eric, but he was out there trashing Newt and the other GOP candidates during the primaries. He needs to STFU about the electorial system and stick to talking about business.

    • RosiesSeeingRed

      What? He LOVED Newt and promoted him every chance he got. But he was constantly shut down by the others. No one would take him seriously because Newt wasn’t the “chosen” one. Newt had the most robust energy plan, and his entire campaign revolved around an economy that would exponentially grow when we developed all of our abundant sources of energy. Bolling believes energy is the key to prosperity too. You will always see him throwing facts about the oil industry and fracking at Beckel because he firmly believes it’s the only way back to prosperity, and Newt was the only one who got that.

  • Rocco11

    Hannity is a dope, he hurts the conservative brand more than he helps it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000829771072 John Q. Jones

      Hannity is absorbed within his own self-image. Also, he is owned by Fox and must follow a prescribed path with very little wiggle room to espouse anything in a way that might chip away at his own opinion of himself. LOL

      That being said, I am very pleased with his benefit concerts and shows he does for the fallen veterans and their families. He will always stand in high regard with me for those efforts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jaspersilvis Jasper Silvis

    All the pundits have it wrong! There is only ONE reason why Mitt Romney lost.

    We allow takers to vote.

    If you live in a household where 1 person receives EARNED income (salary, sales, investments, retirement account, Social Security, etc.), then all the adults in that household may vote.

    If everyone in the household TAKES from America (welfare, unemployment, etc.) with no earned income, then they should have no right to vote.

    Takers are not objective. They are a guarantee vote to the politician that gives the most. That is not Liberty. That is not a Republic.

    The takers voted Obama into office.

    Like Zo said, you have to win back the culture first. There is no way we will EVER pass a law limiting voters to adults who are in a household with earned income. So how do we change America back to its honor?

    We must change the culture. We must stop placing our TRUST in a political leader (yes, even Allen West). We must engage in the culture. The growth of Glenn Beck’s “The Blaze TV” is a prime example. If Andrew Breitbart were still alive, he would be taking his brand to an internet and then cable TV network as well. We need 10 – 20 conservative networks to compete against ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/USA/TNT/SPIKE/BET/etc.

    On those networks, create our own shows that are not just news programs. Create sitcoms with traditional families, documentary programs on international church missions, and other shows that celebrate the traditions of America.

    Every conservative based movie released in the past few years have done better than the average Hollywood movie. Oprah tried to create her own network and it failed. Al Gore tried to create his own network and it failed. They failed because of one reason, and it is not because they could not sell their leftist brand. They failed because the people are already saturated with left leaning thought all over the media. That is also why Air America failed (why listen to Air America when almost every FM radio program has popular music to go along with their leftist disc jockeys – heck, the lyrics in most popular music is leftist and self absorbed tripe).

    Once we have our networks playing Conservative based programs and FM radio stations playing America and God loving music with principled radio hosts, then conservatives will have a real choice and switch to America and God loving networks and radio stations.

    If we do that in the droves we go to the conservative movies, the MSM will have to respond, since they will be losing ratings dramatically. They will be forced to change their programming. Not because we protest, but because of business and their ratings.

    America is more Conservative than Liberal. But Liberals are stronger than Conservatives because they have more outlets to express their view and reach the public with it.

    This is a long term idea, and one that Andrew Breitbart, Glenn Beck, and Alfonzo Rachel have been trying to explain for years.

    We need to stop expecting a politician to save our country. I even fell into that on Wednesday hoping for Allen West/Michele Bachmann 2016 ticket. But I no longer believe that. I am not going to focus on a candidate at all in the next 4 years. I am going to focus on my family, my church, my local community, and my business. I will have to start small with a Youtube channel and a website, but so did PJTV. We need more Alfonzo Rachels and Bill Whittles and Andrew Breitbarts and Glenn Becks. We need hundreds!

    Get involved to make a difference in your local church and community and get your message out there. The culture is more important than the Presidency. The Presidency is just a reflection of the culture.

    Sorry for the long rant. I feel The Right Scoop is the only community where I can voice these opinions. You are part of my family.

  • http://navalwarfare.blogspot.com/ Libertyship46

    This is a tired old argument that comes out after every election and is usually brought up by the losers. Give me a break. Romney lost because he wasn’t a true conservative and couldn’t articulate real conservative principles like Ronald Reagan could. Perhaps, next time, instead of finding a “moderate” Republican, which is nothing more than a light Democrat, why not try a real conservative that can accurately explain conservatism to people who basically get all their real news from The Daily Show, David Letterman, The Tonight Show, Us Magazine, Rolling Stone, and “The Pimp with a Limp” radio show? If you can do THAT, then you will be president of the United States. Until then, you’re sunk. So long as the liberals control both the mainstream news media AND the mass media, we don’t have a prayer. You need a good and entertaining messenger AND you have to get the message across to people, especially young people, who are about as smart as a box of rocks. Remember, this is the country (well, at least 50% of it) that believes Sandra Fluke speaks for all women. Need I say more?

    • http://www.facebook.com/jaspersilvis Jasper Silvis

      Romney lost because the liberal media (MSM news, sitcoms, drama shows, movies, music, etc.) were successful in painting conservatism as evil (war on women, war on gays, war on minorities, war on immigration, war on science, etc.). We need to defeat liberalism within the culture. There is NO WAY even Allen West would have defeated Obama. There was NO conservative candidate who could have defeated Obama in 2012. The liberal media completely protected Obama in ways and to a degree I have never witnessed before. They attacked all things conservative more than I have ever witnessed before. We need to overcome that first.

      We cannot focus on any one candidate in 2016. We must focus on getting our conservative message out to Americans so the culture changes and we can compete toe to toe with liberal views. Culture is key to winning in 2016.

      • chatterbox365

        Sorry Jasper, but Romney and his campaign did not fight hard to counter anything the Left threw at them. Their campaign strategy was McCain Version 2.0, but apparently with a lot of bugs. Besides, as Libertyship46 stated, Romney isn’t a true conservative and because he doesn’t espouse those principles, he could not articulate them genuinely.

        If Allen West were running, he would have ignited the base. West is a fearless warrior and he would have turned the campaign into a bloody cage fight. That’s what the base wants…someone who will fight for Reagan conservative principles.

        We didn’t pick Romney…he was pushed upon us by the RINO establishment. Not many people will dispute he’s a decent man, but he doesn’t represent us. That’s why 2 million conservatives sat out the election. MCain got more votes because of Palin…a warrior who continues to fight for us. We have a lot of work to do and replacing RINOs should be on the priority list.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jaspersilvis Jasper Silvis

          Allen West would have indeed ignited the base. I voted for Sarah Palin in 2008, like many other conservatives. However, I thought the Romney/Ryan team had a better coherent message than McCain/Palin, who I thought was more like oil and water.

          Allen West would have been able to motivate the base, but Obama would still have been able to motivate his. In every single country in the world, including America, liberals out-register conservatives and get to the polls due to the liberal ground game.

          We only win when liberal spin cannot penetrate conservative principles, like with Reagan. He fought, but also explained conservatism every chance he got in different ways every time. Romney used the same explanations and the same punchlines and the same phrases every time he spoke.

          Many thought Paul Ryan would add a fresh argument for conservatism, since he was able to comfortably argue for conservative principles over his years in Congress. However, every stump speech he made were all the same. He seemed unable to articulate conservative principles as if he were having a unique conversation with different people every time he spoke.

          Reagan did that. He expressed our principles in unique ways every time he spoke, which meant that he came across as genuinely conservative. He came across as comfortable being conservative. That helps to change the culture. Romney/Ryan both seemed too scripted and uncomfortable.

          As much as we do not like a lot of policy positions of Newt and Marco, both of them are never scripted as they promote conservatism. Allen West is never scripted either, which is why I would love for him to run in 2016. Paul Ryan became scripted during the campaign. I know a lot of people say that they need to say the same things over and over to get their message in, but that is not accurate. They need to promote the same principles, but explain them in different ways every time, the way Reagan did, like a conversation.

          When we have candidates that are not comfortable having a conversation about conservatism, then liberal attacks work.

          I do agree that liberal attacks would not work against Newt or West, but that would have made the liberal machine press more accusations and use more of the general media to promote their attacks.

          My argument is that without an effort to change the culture back to conservatism, liberal attacks work on the general public and no candidate can defeat an overwhelming liberal culture.

          • RosiesSeeingRed

            Exactly. And your previous post too. Well said Jasper.

  • mediaaccess1

    Not a great ground game!

  • Rocco11

    Nobody wants to say it, not even Rush, but that election was stolen by the Left. That’s what they do..

  • Orangeone

    There is a simple solution and that is to divide electoral votes within the state. There should be no “winner take all”. Maine has the right idea and the rest of the nation should adopt it. Otherwise, the citizens are stuck with what the voting by the inner city slime.

    • toto

      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.

      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. 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. 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.

  • Yazz55

    The electoral college isn’t the problem.

    Brain dead welfare collecting, food stamp collecting idiots with obamaphones being allowed to vote are the problem.

    I don’t profess to be the biggest history or constitutional expert. However, I do recall something that initially only property owners were allowed to vote. Makes lotsa sense to me. Going to that type of standard could quickly eliminate wealth redistribution and solve most of what ails the the USA.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/PKPFHLKVWBX7STYLKFSY4QCVF4 Frank

      Yeah, I love that idea… how much property do you have to own? If your mortgage is underwater, do you own? Does a car count? How about a big screen TV? If I live in a house that GrandDad put in a trust, can I vote? What if I live in Moms house, she gets to vote and I don’t?
      Then we have the Gay vote, 2 co-owners, 2 votes. Extended catholic family, multiple adult children moved back home with sick economy, maybe 5 adults: 1 vote (only dad on the deed ).
      Maybe stock ownership? Here in Silicon Valley, we all have Stock Options. ALL of us liberal CA folks are BUSINESS OWNERS through stock ( even the janitor – Apple made a number of custodians members of the 1%) . Think about that!

  • Rocco11

    If Republicans don’t grow a pair and tighten up voter ID laws, they may never win another election period.

  • LIBERTYUSA

    …quit talking excuses put up a true CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE with CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPALS . Then let us talk about the VICTORY in 2016 IF IT IS NOT TO LATE !”

  • http://www.facebook.com/terry.smith.188478 Terry Smith

    The obama phone zombies showed up in places like the NorthEast, so don’t feel left out. I wanted Romney to win, for a more nefarious reason. All the obama phone zombies were threatening to riot (which i think was a means to have folks change their mind at the ballot box.). Good! Time to clean out the dregs of the population barrel. Save some tax money. Put down criminals that would have been in those crowds.

    There! I said it!

  • http://twitter.com/Cabin49 David Wood

    People are people regardless of the county or state they live in. The one common denominator is that we all are Americans and each one of our votes should count. EC should not be dropped but winner takes all should. EVs should be apportioned by by popular vote by state, at least my Connecticut vote would count for a change. All states become battleground states.

    • toto

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

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

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

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

      A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

      It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

      Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

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

  • http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu Wolfie

    I’m with Sean Hannity here. If we lose the Electoral College then cities (which have huge Liberal majorities) will dictate votes and “Flyover country” will become that.

    • toto

      “Flyover” country is FLOWN OVER now. Politically irrelevant.

      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.

      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. 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. 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.

  • giomerica

    I think that we conservatives who live in liberal states like NY and CA just need to move to battleground states like OH, FL, CO, etc.

    Then the liberal states would have less power in the electoral college while conservative voices would have more power in the critical states where President is ultimately decided.

    …just a thought ; )

    • chatterbox365

      A better solution would be to have the EVs from CA and NY allocated.

      • toto

        An analysis of the whole number proportional plan and congressional district systems of awarding electoral votes, evaluated the systems “on the basis of whether they promote majority rule, make elections more nationally competitive, reduce incentives for partisan machinations, and make all votes count equally. . . .

        Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, the congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.

        For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . .”

        FairVote

  • http://twitter.com/SabrinaNC10 Sabrina

    Well if the taxes start going up soon in Calif. there will be more people and compaines,out of there and but we then would have more coming in from outside the US and well we know what would happen then, unless things change

    • chatterbox365

      California is buried deep in the crapper and it will take a miracle for the state to emerge.

      Taxes are going up because the knuckleheads in my state reelect idiots and pass measures that increase taxes. The dems are always trying to raise taxes through state, county and city measures…oh and let’s not forget the bonds.

      The Unions found a way to finance their pensions for another two years until the next election where they will be telling us the schools need more money.

  • http://twitter.com/mjh4259 Mary

    I think it would be fun to experiment with the original method of choosing a president, before the EC–i.e., people run with or without a party affiliation, then whoever wins the majority vote is president; the second-highest vote gets to be vice-president. There would be fireworks for sure, and probably more gridlock. But at least it would keep them all in check and out of our business ;-)

  • SAMinPA

    I am fervently against using the nationwide popular vote to determine the presidency, as all it would mean is California, NY, IL and NJ would control the election. What I would like to see is a change in how the delegates are awarded in each state. Using a system where a delegate is awarded to the candidate winning the popular vote in each House district and the two Senate delegates are awarded to the candidate winning the statewide popular vote, it truly becomes ‘all politics is local’ type of system. Red people in blue states and blue people in red states can now believe their voices can be heard, and flyover country can actually be represented.

    • toto

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

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

      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).

    • toto

      Maine and Nebraska use that method. Maine and Nebraska voters prefer a national popular vote.

      A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
      In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
      * 71% favored a national popular vote;
      * 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
      * 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
      ***
      A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
      In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
      * 60% favored a national popular vote;
      * 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
      * 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

      Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

      If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.

      The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. Nationwide, there have been only 55 “battleground” districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

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

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

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

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

  • Bekuzikan

    I think they should add a third option… A 3-round Tag-Team “Cage Match” between the candidates and their running mates.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ken.kuieck Kuieck Ken

    “Eric, if the popular vote counted we would be a democracy. NOT GOOD. (3 wolves and a rabbit vote on what is for dinner) bad senerio. Rep Republic gives equal level for all. I do argree that winner take all is not the best, but states still have the final say.
    Kimmy needs a little lip color, not much. She looks a little pale. (rough night?).
    Still beautiful.

    • toto

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

      The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, 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 Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
      National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

  • http://twitter.com/lorikaye Lori Kaye
  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.littau Chuck Littau

    Wow… at last some good news… Just heard on Becks Radio program that Allen West is 300 votes ahead in the recount and will be on the radio shortly to talk to Glenn about the massive voter irregularities. Thank God Allen West demanded a recount.

    • NJK

      This is wonderful news! Does he need any money? I want to split up the country and call ourselves the United Conservative States, and take our Constitution and Declaration of Independence with us. Allen West for President.

  • Christi25

    I don’t understand why people who don’t live in the swing states feel that their vote doesn’t count. Of course their vote counts, because those in red states keep their state red by their vote! EC is one of the most important parts of the constitution, which should be kept. I am sure Eric Bolling was very happy with the EC in 2000…

    • toto

      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 26% of the nation’s votes!

      The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

      80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

      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.

      • Christi25

        Toto, thank you for your reply. I agree with all that you are saying. But the fact is, the important things should anyway be decided at the local level. We don’t want more federal policies/laws (except those which would abolish lots of existing ones…). This should be the goal from now. Returning to what was initially intended. I was physically sick after the results on Tuesday, but now, the more I think, the more I realize that we are in a pretty good position with 30 republican governors and the majority in the House. Just build on this for 2014 and 2016.

        • toto

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

          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.

          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.

          • Christi25

            Toto, I read some of your other posts, and I see what you are talking about. What you are describing would be a trick that would elect the president by the nationwide popular vote, without contradicting the constitution. This is not what I want. I do not want the result to accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote. This would mean pure democracy, which would end in time with the tyranny of the majority – as it is very well known. What the founders wanted was to avoid exactly this. They wanted a “federal” not a “national” constitution (see the Federalist Papers) and to be so not only formally, but in its concrete application. The Federalist Papers also say: “The immediate election of the president is to be made by the sates in their political character”. That was the intention. This means the states should not consult the results in the other states.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IIIWOY4VC2GIN7SC5GZD7BG5OA yahoo-IIIWOY4VC2GIN7SC5GZD7BG5OA

    Hannity is a tool

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Grr-Time/100003094494939 Grr Time

      And you’re a brain surgeon? Yahoo = one of the 47%…

  • Mandy Acosta

    I’m only just beginning to understand the electoral college thing myself… I understand the reason that states have their own number of electoral votes… but, I kinda wish we cold divide them up more evenly… so instead of it being all about the swing states with the most EC votes it would be more about winning as many states as possible… I live in Florida so I know my vote matters… but if I lived in a “safe” state, I probably wouldn’t care as much to vote… Why would they? They already know if there state is going to be red or blue… everyone already knows, so why vote?

  • Boris_Badenoff

    Face reality. The fact is the demographics of America are changed.
    I do not listen to the man but Michael Savage was right.
    Borders , Language and Culture.

    We lost it and you can not get it back. Tweaking the election process will not restore America to something it is no longer.

    A good portion of today’s immigrants could care less about America. They are just here to take.

    The blame goes back a long way, the barn door has been wide open for decades, but this idiot that was just reelected will accelerate the fall as he weakens America in practically every way.

    We were too lazy in defending our culture, now we have none. Kids in school now do not even learn how we became the greatest nation on earth, where we came from.
    When you do not know where you came from and how you got to where you are now , you have no idea where you are going or how to get there.

    Socialism sounds fine to a person that knows nothing about it.

    History repeats itself.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jaspersilvis Jasper Silvis

      Excellent and sobering comment.

  • tomyj1

    Without the ELECTORAL COLLEGE the campaign would have to spread the million of dollars over more than just 5/7 ‘swing’ states..

  • tomyj1

    HOW MANY OBAMAPHONE WERE GIVEN OUT????

  • wraith67

    I don’t think we should get rid of the electoral college. If we did, Conservatives would need to find a different place to live – the country would go full on socialist based off the north east vote.

  • mustang2007

    As a Republican in Washington state I feel my vote did not count. Do away with the electoral college.

  • mustang2007

    As a Republican in Washington state I feel my vote does not count. Do away with the electoral college.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Grr-Time/100003094494939 Grr Time

      I’m in the same boat. It’s a major tragedy when 1 or 2 counties control an entire state. Fortunately, King CountySeattle is ground zero.

    • toto

      The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

      The bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but since enacted by states).

      Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

      The candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

      The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have been by state legislative action.

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

      NationalPopularVote
      Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  • aposematic

    Just divide Texas and Alaska into 10 smaller States so the red States can compete with the NE City States getting two Senators. As good as any idea… Or why not just get rid of Big Government handouts… More ideas but getting tired now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1082453930 DeNeice Kenehan

    Darn People!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Grr-Time/100003094494939 Grr Time

    A dishonest and politically motivated press is a bigger threat to our freedom then any outside threat has ever been. Combine that with the stupidignorantlazygreedy electorate we currently have (the 47%), we’re doomed as a free nation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1082453930 DeNeice Kenehan

    ” So how can we beat ALL those problematic people who vote for Democrats? Do we change the Electoral College? But what if all those people in California come out and vote in droves, I mean, in DROVES? And all those people in New York? How do we GET AROUND all those TROUBLESOME citizens?

    Dirtier campaign? Better stealth suppression? Drones? Better spray tans? Ban the word “rape” and “rich” during campaigns? Longer and more TV commercials? More billionaires? Foreign billionaires? Drugs in their kool-aid? FOX-News from the pulpit? I know! Free stuff!!”

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Grr-Time/100003094494939 Grr Time

      And DeNeice said “De De DEE!”

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

    The solution is to do it by percentage which I believe Nebraska does. In other words if 40% of the people voted for Romney, say from CA, then he should get 40% of the electoral vote.

    If it won’t be done by percentage then it should stay as it is. However in a nation this vast ask yourself why we have things such as ‘swing’ states.

    • toto

      Maine and Nebraska use a congressional district winner system.

      A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
      In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
      * 71% favored a national popular vote;
      * 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
      * 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
      ***
      A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
      In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
      * 60% favored a national popular vote;
      * 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
      * 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

      Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

      If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.

      The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. Nationwide, there have been only 55 “battleground” districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

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

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

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

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

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

        Shows just exactly how dumb the country is getting then. I will not now nor will I ever support popular vote and I will actively work against it.

    • toto

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

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

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

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

      A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

      It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

      Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

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

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PKPFHLKVWBX7STYLKFSY4QCVF4 Frank

    Oh, my, no! It would be terrible if those big liberal states had an equal say in selecting a president! Keep it like it is, where a conservative Montana vote is worth three of those liberal Californians. A fair election could destroy conservative control of the US.
    And having to flood ALL the states with money could bankrupt even the Kochs! ( wait, no, maybe not. Those guys are obscenely rich. )

    • notebene

      I hate to break it to ya, but Soros…whose puppet the Imposter is and equally you are…is far more wealthy than the Koch brothers. Anarchy would ensue if the vote depended on the popular vote. You are really ignorant, a true liberal troll.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bob.hanrahan.33 Bob Hanrahan

    Eric,

    The electoral college is not the problem. The problem is too many people trust the government more than they trust themselves. They then complain when those who are self-reliant succeed and they do not. They fail to understand the paradox of their thinking. I am beginning to believe our education system is the problem.

  • cabensg

    The US is not a Democracy it’s a Republic. In a Democracy the people directly make policy we have representatives (as they are) who represent us. I’m no expert on this but as long the the left holds sway over public opinion we do not want the popular vote electing anyone. It’s bad enough that’s how we get our representatives.

    Here’s an interesting article about the difference.

    http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html