THIS BEARS REPEATING: Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends” “I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.” “I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.” Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview “I would rather have a popular vote. “ Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.” In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted. "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." So if eliminating the EC is a leftarded thing, then your President is a closeted libtard.
The argument that the electoral college forces candidates to pay attention to areas that would otherwise be ignored by candidates is a total crock. There are massive number of republican voters in California and New York that could scooped if Republicans campaigned there.
The candidates would only have to campaign in the 10 largest cities / metro areas in the country and could ignore the rest of the country if the Presidential election was based on popular vote. This is why our founding fathers very wisely implemented the EC to prevent the tyranny of the majority in the cities.
This is nonsense. The candidates already campaign in only about 10 states as it is in the general. What are you talking about? Seriously, think about it. You would get way more democrats in places like Alabama and Mississippi if there was a popular vote and way more republicans in Northern California and upstate New York. Rather than candidates in Florida, Ohio etc, the whole map would open up.
I will disagree -- if a popular vote was used to elect the President in the U.S. then the candidates would simply ignore most of the U.S. and only campaign in a small set of large cities. They would even bother to run commercials in most states.
A good alternative to the "winner take all" method would be for the states to allocate electors proportionately based on the state popular vote. Allocating electors by a states popular vote vs congressional district vote would eliminate gerrymandering. Candidates would campaign in most, if not all states, rather than just swing states. This method would be constitutional. Of course, all states would need to come to an agreement to allocate electors in this manner, otherwise it would not work.
Agree in toto. The Electoral College is one of the greatest parts of this republic and helps make it stand apart from other countries in the world. Dems don't like it because it causes them to lose sometimes. If the shoe were on the other foot, they would love the EC. Also, it may be that states can choose electors however they wish, but if they do it against the vote of the state, it would eventuall be repealed in those states. One other item, there is a "compact" of states that are trying to implement this with each other-----This is totally unconstitutional full stop.
No. That makes it close to the popular vote. The intent of the Framers was to have the states vote----not the individual Congreffional districts.
No, it does not. The states would vote. There would be 51 separate popular votes, and each state would allocate their electors proportionately based on that state's popular vote. This method would satisfy the intent of the Framers.