Notice how:
(1) throughout the chronology, direct popular election of the executive is defeated,
(2) selection of the electors for each state - given with the understaning that the expectation is that the state is actively chosing the electors who are selected to presumably actually MAKE a choice - with language that the methodology for that selection will be set “by the state legislatures”, and then
(3) the “national popular vote” agenda uses that provision to attempt to say that the “state legislatures” can do away with the essence and purpose of the electoral college by, through mere legislation, ending the responsibility of states from exercising an actual choice of their electors, and demanding, by previous legislative fiat, that the “national popular vote”, not any actual will of their state, will chose their electors for them.
Our NPV troll here on FreeRep often trots out the excuse that the “winner take all” assignment of electors by most states is at the heart of the problem, yet he denies that to the extent that there is any truth to that, a state’s assignment of electoral votes proportionately, instead of winner take all (something I believe a few states do) is a remedy the states can enact, without accepting the “national popular vote” agenda.
As far as the issue of the really big states, due to their very big populations in our time, possibly achieving an electoral vote majority out of some combination of those big states alone, with that victory accounting NOT for a popular vote close to a majority, there is a remedy and “national popular vote” is not it.
The number of states and the population distribution of the states has changed considerably since we allocated two federal senators for each state and set the number of electors from each state, for the electoral college, to the number of their legislative seats in the House and Senate combined.
If necessary, for preventing a tiny portion of very large states from acquiring an electoral college majority on their own, without adding additional federal senators, we could change the number of electors from each state, for the electoral college. as equal to their number of seats in House of Representatives plus three (or whatever is needed over time). By that method a balance might be restored between “most of the states” and “the states with the most”.
The Framers put together what we call an electoral college to minimize corruption. NPV would constitutionalize corruption and help destroy what remains of our republic. Democracy is killing us. Yes, we should elect true electors; people we trust to make intelligent decisions. It is too bad our State legislators were not bound to elect the President.
No state uses a proportional method now.
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.