General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSwitch by 22,856 Voters Would Have Defeated Biden -- Despite Nationwide Lead of 5,346,780
An email from the National Popular Vote organization shows why we must abolish the Electoral College or defeat its power with the National Popular Vote bill:
A switch by 5,495 voters in Arizona, 7,087 in Georgia, and 10,274 in Wisconsin would have defeated Joe Biden in last week's presidential election -- despite Biden's (growing) nationwide lead of 5,346,780.
Each of these 22,286 voters were 234 times more important than the 5,346,780.
Under the current state-by-state "winner-take-all" system of electing the President, all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Biden would not have the 270 electoral votes needed for election without the 37 electoral votes from these three states.
Near-misses are common under the current winner-take-all system. In 2004, a switch of 59,393 in Ohio would have given John Kerry a majority of the Electoral College -- despite President George W. Bush's nationwide lead of 3,012,171.
And, in 2016, a switch of 5,353 votes in Michigan, 11,375 in Wisconsin, and 22,147 in Pennsylvania would have given the Presidency to the winner of the national popular vote, instead of Donald Trump.
The National Popular Vote bill will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Please tell your state legislators to pass the National Popular Vote bill.
yardwork
(61,607 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,186 posts)with swing voters in swing states. Simply ridiculous.
yankee87
(2,170 posts)We are letting states that have more cattle than people have a way outsized power in relation to their population. I wish we could have a one person, one vote, but I don't know if that will ever happen.
David__77
(23,385 posts)I was concerned that Biden would lose electoral college while winning national vote by a decent amount. CA accounts for more than three points of Bidens national lead. Before election I was concerned Bidens votes would be suboptimally distributed across states. Im glad that that didnt happen.
dawg day
(7,947 posts)Even when they win popular vote by 5%.
David__77
(23,385 posts)The danger is losing PA, MI, and WI before TX switches Democratic.
DownriverDem
(6,228 posts)is totally in the Biden camp. Our electors are Dems pledged to the winner which is Biden. This is pure crap.
former9thward
(32,003 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,412 posts)I would be interested in listening to this
Rstrstx
(1,399 posts)And leave FL and TX for the long term, theyre very expensive (unless Trumps relatively high Hispanic support turns out to be a one-off).
AZ, GA and NC can make up for lost electoral votes in PA, WI and MI. MI was the true fluke of 2016, it has since reverted back to a number youd expect. But PA and WI were as tight as last time. It could be the tightness was more of a Trump thing rather than a long term red shift, I dont know.
I think FL and TX will be blue/purple by the time Republicans actually start winning the rust belt states regularly. It wouldnt be a shock if TX flips first; in spite of a drop in Hispanic support its still moving in the right direction (-9 in 2016 vs -5.7 in 2020). But Republicans smell blood in the water in FL, its the only large Sunbelt state that is moving away from Democrats.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)But in this climate cynicism is sort of necessary for my sanity.
Glad it turned out the way it did.
Bengus81
(6,931 posts)Everyone else from State and local Judges,State Rep and Congress are in office by the majority vote of the people, not by some BS system that says a Presidental winner takes it in a State despite winning only by a few thousand votes.
young_at_heart
(3,767 posts)The system is not equal for both parties!
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen any time soon.
Klaralven
(7,510 posts)Which will never happen.
enough
(13,259 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)To borrow Chris Hayes language last night.
Lonestarblue
(9,988 posts)We cant pass the National Popular Vote without that. Another thought I had is that each state should allocate its electors by the votes in the state. So instead of winner take all, which essentially nullifies millions of votes, the electors would be split by the percentage of each partys vote. That would seem fairer even than the National Popular Vote.
I read recently that Tom Perez is not running again for head of the DNC. The article writer seemed to think that Jaime Harrison was a shoo in. He would probably be good, but really, who delivered Georgia for us this year? I think Stacey Abrams should be the new DNC head if she wants it. She would be great, and its time to reward black women for their leadership within the Democratic Party. We need that 59-state plan to start targeting and winning state elections.
moonscape
(4,673 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,158 posts)but the EC has been thwarted by parties and monied interests. We came that close to 2 terms of the worst-suited politician in our history? Our ability to sleep soundly is temporary.
2016 was not supposed to happen. Elections are not supposed to be decided by last minute sways of emotion that form public opinion.
I think these extended election periods - early voting, mail-in, absentee - are a check on wild emotion.
But also, there was a time when Senators were not elected by the people but were appointed by state legislatures. Yet even direct election is now entrenched. You can't oust a Senator with $90 million.
Half of Kentucky Democrats didn't vote. What's up with that?
bucolic_frolic
(43,158 posts)Nothing like home gigs, tax incentives, tolerance, quality of life to attract Democrats.
former9thward
(32,003 posts)People have been moving away from what we call blue states for decades. Going from the NE to the South and West. That is why the NE has lost electoral votes and the South and West have gained them.
dalton99a
(81,485 posts)RANDYWILDMAN
(2,672 posts)so many small blue area's on the map represent sooooo many damn people.
MustLoveBeagles
(11,605 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,412 posts)but the Republicans would have been SOL in just about every Presidential Election this century (so far) except for 2004(?) and even further back to 1992(?) if we had a Popular Vote system.
NickB79
(19,236 posts)This election was WAY too close in the swing states.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)... unless and until your state somehow becomes a swing state. It's even far more undemocratic than it appears on the surface.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)The winner of the popular vote nationwide would receive 50 EVs - one for each state in the union.
This would make it '588' total, 294 win.
I think this would make it much less likely that the winner of the popular vote would lose the electoral college.