“…an interstate compact that would guarantee the candidate who won the popular vote becomes president.”

I went to the link in the last paragraph but it doesn’t say how this would actually work.

Obama could have implemented the unhealthy and illegal Bush smog standard but instead opted for the far dirtier 1997 standard.

With all this discussion of polls, you’d almost think that we live in a democracy.

It is simple the states enter into a compact where they agree to give all their electoral college votes to the candidate that won the popular voter. Once states with 270 electoral college votes join you have defacto national popular vote

And while we’re at it, let’s move Iowa to the tail end of the presidential nominating process. Thanks to that state’s early caucus, politicians have to prostrate themselves at the altar of ethanol, which doesn’t help the environment and drives up the price of food.

Pure speculation. We don’t know the real reason(s) why O decides to kill 12,000 Americans each year and sicken many more with air pollution. Having clean air, would create jobs and healthy workers.

Air pollution is more dangerous than Bin Laden was. It certainly kills more people. But you see, some fat cats make money, so the killing gets sanctioned by their puppets in DC.

“Did the President ignore the wishes of the American people …?”

Jon, are you implying that the Preznit is cynical and calculating?

Now THAT would be news the American people could use.

What do you see BEYOND politics as we, some of us, anyway, have come to know them, Jon?

On another post, the one previous to this, you report that Obama is personally “liked” … and that if the economy improves that Obama’s job approval numbers could bounce back “easily”.

So, are people not adequately informed about the cynical and calculating part, or are they simply hoping against hope that the likable Obama really does take the American people’s wishes (or even dire needs) to heart?

Where do you see the light of reason, of deeper truth in a wider understanding of the plight, the lack of political power, of most of the American people?

Where are the DEEPER facts, Jon? Why do the American people seem to understand so little about what is going on? Does the media have ANYTHING to do with what must be recognized as a form of ignorance or not knowing?

There are “facts”, surface and superficial … and then there are deeper facts which are concerned about WHY “things” are as they are …

DW

Is that really the way it works?

So a Republican could win Texas by 1 vote and get all 34 Elect. votes, but a Democrat could win NY by 90% and only get 31 Elect. votes?

How does that ensure the winner of the popular vote is elected?

Oops, I just thought it through. You’re saying they wait and see what the outcome of the entire country is, and then through their votes that way.

I got ya now, my bad.

If the electoral college was good enough for founding fathers, it should be good enough for us. Ditto only white male property owners could vote. /s

you misunderstand, the system makes it so that who ever wins the national popular voter is guaranteed 270 electoral college votes so would win the White House

Got ya.

The risk of going to popular vote is that candidates will brand themselves for dense population regions and disregard rural regions. Big City politics would then apply nationwide. As atractive as it seems, I don’t think this is a viable alternative for this reason.

There are all kinds of alternative schemes. The PTB don’t want you to know about them; they want you to think that only 2 identical parties will work. There’s instant runoff, cumulative voting, etc. Lani Guinier has done work in this area, there’s another book Fixing Elections, which I haven’t read, but it discusses some of the alternatives. I’m not up on the state of affairs on the alternatives, but before you conclude there aren’t any, you might read about it in depth.

I didn’t conclude that there aren’t alternatives, only that I don’t believe that this altnernative fixes the problem.

The Electoral College is the primary reason we have only 2 vialble political parties. Until it is abolished all third party movements are doomed to empower the major political party the insurgent political movement is most ideologically distant from.

The 1912 Electoral College results illustrates this. Taft [23.2%] and TR [27.4%] received a combined total of 50.6% of the popular vote and a combined total of 96 [18%] Electoral College votes. Wilson with 41.8% of the popular vote received 435 [82%] Electoral College votes.

So you think the 5 percent of the population who live in rural regions should dictate to remaining 95 percent. Nice democracy you’ve got there.

And a great disaster. In retrospect Woodrow Wilson was one one of our worst Presidents. He effectively destroyed the Left for the rest of the 20th century.

There is an essential flaw in ozone regs in that they focus on regions and not point sources. Well that’s my understanding anyway. So downwind localities end up with alerts and having to take some measures while the big point sources upwind roll merrily along.

Admittedly trucks and autos are a big source but I think that there are actually no penalties for large individual ozone producers. Correct me if I am wrong. I am not saying rolling back these regs is right but it is my feeling that the regs themselves are hardly maximal.

Yes, that was the reason why things were set up the way they were. It’s because of the Connecticut Compromise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

Jon – if you’re still around, I found this article through a UK friend on facebook. I think it’s relevant here.

America’s Poorest States

It would appear that there’s a strong link between these former Confederate states, poverty levels, and consistent Republican voting. It would suggest that Republican voters are emotional voters vs. critical-thinking voters, based on the consistent message of the Republican party.

It is why there are a fixed number of Senators from each state.

Around here, trucks and autos are not treated accurately either. Counties in heavily populated areas require more and more expensive emissions testing. So if you live in town and drive 2 miles to work, you pay a lot for emissions testing. But if you live across the county line and have to drive 40 miles to work, no problem. Who’s the bigger polluter?

I thought we all agreed that “presently” it doesn’t matter which party or candidate wins. We are just as screwed. OTOH, it does make for an interesting academic debate.

I was listening to the debate over proportional distribution of electoral college votes by individual legislative district allocations with bonuses given to the overall winner. It gave me a headache.

So if a dem wins NY, but the rep wins the total vote, the new york voters are ignored and the NY electoral vote is cast fr the rep??

Kris, my wife is ALWAYS critical of my thinking. Is that what you mean?

How many of the joiners so far are I&R states, where the NPV status could be subsequently reversed at the ballot box even after the national tipping point had been reached?

An added bonus — it would be harder for Republicans to steal an election on a national scale by voter suppression, mis-counting ballots, etc.

Wives are critical by nature. Republicans are dumb by nurture.

It’s the old nature versus nurture debate.

Environmental groups in Ohio are partnering with childhood health organizations and fighting this decision.

Great, just because we think, we’ll be called, “Elitist!”

I just consider critical thinking a “basic skill” which is important for progress.

I agree. But it does appear to be a “dealer option” on some models.

Critical thinking requires facing the truth, which is often scary, disheartening, or both. Especially in the states I linked to.

For a lot of people, I find, it’s easier to stick your head in the sand and pull the lever for someone who preaches from the podium how right you are, and how it’s your God-given right to freedom, money, etc. Otherwise, you have to look at yourself, your choices, evaluate your failures, formulate a plan, and work hard towards a goal.

This is just too difficult for some.

“…he was uninterested in all polls that took place on this topic.”

Was he interested in the two polls that took place the day before yesterday, in New York and Nevada?

Oh my, that could be worked into a funny t-shirt…

Critical thinking…
It does appear to be a “dealer option” on some models.

Your observations are spot on.

I teach cross-cultural mediation classes. I often do trainings for school districts.

It is amazing that when I force “thinking” irt concerns about race, I have people burst into tears and call me mean. Then there are the participants who profess, “But-but-but I AM a good person. Yes, I have thought or done some of the items on this survey, but I am a good person. My survey results put me in the category of bigot. But I am a good person. I am a Christian, not a bigot.”

I have people walk out of the seminars half way through with tears streaming down their faces, not for anything I have said or done, but by how difficult it is to look at oneself and formulate a plan to correct one’s thoughts and actions.

I remember a retired teacher friend from Iowa saying it was nice that farmers were getting something with the ethanol subsidies. Of course, they didn’t like welfare. Iowa is just Tea Party heaven. Screw ‘em.

Still not buying it.

This is pretty much the argument people who live in big cities always make when they butt up against our republic’s features designed to balance power between states.

I’m not sure how it could be considered more democratic to give the folks in NYC power to say “Hey! We have more people in NYC than there are in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Nevada, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Colorado combined …. we should be empowered to impose the will of a single city’s citizens – who don’t give a fig about Nebraska or Idaho (let alone actually know anything about them) – on the people living in all of these states.”

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

The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states 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 wins the presidency.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states or districts. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state and district maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states and districts. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

“Winner-take-all” by state or district is what causes “battleground” states and districts, at the expense of 2/3rds of us – over 85 million voters, who are ignored under the current system.

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.

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

Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.

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

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

Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states.

Under the current system, the 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, and a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

With National Popular Vote, big states that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates’ attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split — five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). 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. 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).

Under National Popular Vote, every vote is equal.

16% of Americans live in rural areas.

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 obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

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

Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run, can be found by examining the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in 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 certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. 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 in Ohio and Florida already knows–namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.

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. It is certainly true that the biggest cities in those states typically vote Democratic. However, the suburbs, exurbs, small towns, and rural parts of the states often voted 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.

Under 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.

The main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, 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 still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

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

Not a shred of this, fascinating or important or worthwhile as it may be, matters… until we at least begin to elect a Congress* with a measurable IQ and a remote sense of shame.

* Not to mention governors, state legislators, mayors, councilmen, school board members, etc. etc. etc.