Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Chode

Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts, successful candidates will continue to 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 . It would no longer matter who won a state.
Now the state-by-state winner-take-all laws awarding electoral votes, do not protect small states against large ones. Swing states dominate. In the 2008 election, both major presidential candidates spent 98% of their time and money in only 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI), and over 50% in just 4 (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Only 15 states out of 50 were in play. Only voters in those 15 got attention. Issues that play well in those 15 states get excessive focus. Voters in those 15 states have hugely disproportionate influence over who will be our President, while voters in 35 states have no influence on who their next President will be. Under National Popular Vote, swing states would lose their excessive power because all votes, in every state, would count equally.

Now the state-by-state winner-take-all Electoral College always ignores the smallest states (3-4 electoral votes). 12 of the 13 smallest states 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. Eight state legislative chambers in the smallest states have passed the bill. It has been enacted by Hawaii.


14 posted on 07/25/2010 3:55:09 PM PDT by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: mvymvy
seems to me that calf has more voters than lets say six states combined, i don't think it has more electoral votes than those combine six do

so if several RAT states have enough RAT voters to negate voters in other states, popular voting is a hindrance because as i see it, that's where the electoral votes come into play

16 posted on 07/25/2010 4:35:47 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson