You can’t mix elections for state offices within the state to national elections.
Without the electoral college it’s all about getting 50% plus 1 of around 135-140 million votes. Demographics and resources change. Why would a national candidate for president waste any money in areas where it just won’t matter? Of the blue states of CA, NY, IL, MA, OR, WA, PA, NJ, WI, and CT they alone have 48 million registered voters. Large red states and the south have about the same. Toss ups are MO, OH, FL, CO, etc.
The Dems and libs would just concentrate on big cities with large minority populations. When you are just trying to get the majority of the whole why bother in districts where you can’t win or there aren’t enough votes to bother? And as you can see from the stats, just a small increase in turnout (or stealing) in those huge cities with Dem-friendly demographics and they crush the opposition.
They’ll concentrate their resources on those places and spend more on registration and turnout. Why bother spending a dime in Georgia other that Atlanta? How much can you save when you know where you won’t win since you don’t need to win the state to get it’s electoral votes? Millions!
They would only need the average 35-40% of Dems in red states to win nationwide. And they’ll only have to spend token money in the blue cities in those red states. They already have huge machines for that. Again, more concentrated resources instead of spreading them out trying to win a state they might before have just written off.
Look at Oklahoma for example. Every county votes red as a majority. The GOP usually wins it’s electoral votes. Without that all you need is 45% of the state that you can get in OK City and Norman. In Missouri all you need is enough votes out of St. Louis and Kansas City to add to the national total. And MO is considered a “swing” state.
They can also just not bother in states like New Mexico when the total vote is just too small to worry about. The left will always get the left vote no matter what. You really think people in Wyoming will ever see a presidential candidate in person?
I’ll stick with the Founders. The EC keeps equality among the states when it comes to electing the president.
Well, closer to 120-125 million votes.
The EC now certainly does NOT give or promote equality among the states when it comes to electing the president. Have you read ANYTHING I’ve posted?
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It 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 U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures 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.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
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.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution.
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 — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
National Popular Vote is not about winning districts or states. It’s about winning individual votes, wherever they are.
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.
Wyoming is among the more than 3/4ths of states that don’t see presidential or vice presidential candidates under the current system.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now, and are IGNORED.