Ayup. True dat.
This whole "popular vote movement" was always around, but it became official Democrat policy when Bush beat Gore. Keeping people focused on why we have the Electoral College vote system is the only remedy. It's not because we delegate our votes to our "betters." It's to make the Presidency a 50-state election. Nobody would ever bother trying to get votes in Caspar, Wyoming when the big coastal cities are where the votes are. The country would be even more bitterly divided than it is now.
At the time I pointed out to some Gorebot clown complaining about the Florida recount (This was before December 2000) that if he liked the Florida fiasco, he's just LOVE it if the recount was going on in all 50 states. Being a state-by-state affair erects firewalls between the states, so crap like the Florida recount stays in Florida.
Here’s a prediction..as Obama’s poll numbers continue to implode, early next year you’re goign to see some think pieces that the only way Obama can win is by the elcetoral college, because he’s gonna loose the popular vote..then watch ALL these people do a 180...
I am not aware of any Democratic Party official policy or endorsement of National Popular Vote. The National Popular Vote organization had its initial press conference in February 2006.
If the reason for the current Electoral College vote system is to make the Presidency a 50-state election, and try to get votes in Caspar, Wyoming, it’s doing a pretty poor job.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states, like Wyoming, and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, like Wyoming. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored —including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign,when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people, including Wyoming, have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states, like Wyoming, are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
A survey of 1,039 Wyoming voters conducted on January 4–5, 2011 showed 69% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?”
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 66% among Republicans, 77% among Democrats, and 72% among others. By gender, support was 76% among women and 62% among men. By age, support was 70% among 18-29 year olds, 68% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for those older than 65.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#WY_2011JAN
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
A nationwide recount would not happen. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and recount. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years under the National Popular Vote approach. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount, no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.