Each district’s vote count is the fairest way to decide an election. It mattes not, whether a third, fourth, or fifth party has the most votes. That is the will of the district/people.
I disagree that it compounds the problems of the EC. Each district would be speaking loudly and clearly and I believe, more people would vote if they thought their vote actually counted. That is the true will of the people.
Popular vote will never be fair. Miami, Orlando, and Tampa/St. Petersburg should not be able to decide who gets Florida’s electoral votes. I’ll never go along with that!
My Congressman should be able to cast a vote FOR HIS DISTRICT.
Popular vote will be the death knell for conservative voters. Too much voter fraud goes on for that to ever be considered, Besides, liberals favor popular vote......they know they benefit the most.
With the current state winner-take-all method in Florida, the winner of Florida’s vote gets Florida’s electoral votes.
With National Popular Vote, the candidate with the most votes in the Country, decides who wins the presidency.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
About 88% of districts are non-competitive and would be ignored with a district winner system. Many are heavily gerrymandered.
In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. A smaller fraction of the country’s population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 20%) that now get overwhelming attention, while 80% of the states are ignored
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
“In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, the Republican nominee still managed to carry nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts. If the by-district scheme had been in place for that election, Romney would have collected nine of Michigan’s 16 electoral votes — not enough to change the national result, but enough to make Michigan a net win for Romney, notwithstanding his decisive drubbing in the statewide election.” – Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press, Jan. 12, 2014
Congressmen are not electors.
Electors are apportioned to each state and the District of Columbia. The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. In total, there are 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 senators, and the three additional electors from the District of Columbia. - Wikipedia
A second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district winner method.
Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.
A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***
A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
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.