Why do we stick to the Electoral College system?

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

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 with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

However, by 2016, by state laws, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 rural, small, medium, and large states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

So what you are saying is that we let the largest States and urban areas vote for who is President and forget the majority of the States? How is that going to help the 1 man, 1 vote issue? Really small States will be totally neglected and ignored. The rights and lifestyle of those that don't live in large Urban areas will have to live just like those that can walk to work.

I see so many down sides with this that only socialist liberals could want this.

Finally, what part of Constitution that gives the States more rights and responsibilities then the Federal Government. If anything, I would rather see more power transferred from the Federal Government to the local level and more incentive for people to become self sufficient instead of having multiple generations living off of government aid.

It was originally created because people didn't know enough about who they were voting for cause they didn't have TV/internet now we do so it should be changed to the popular vote because they electors can change the vote because they are against the candidates ideals when they were elected to vote for a certain candidate so it should go to the popular vote so states that have smaller populations aren't left out.

but the states like Florida and Ohio stand out because they are the swing vote states the votes there matter the most everywhere else it is pretty much already known who is gonna win and the number of electoral vote is based on state population like the number of House Reps. is

Technology has nothing to do with the electoral college.

It was set up to protect the political interests of the small states against the overwhelming numbers of the large states. That need still exists today. Technology hasn't changed that at all; I am not sure why you think it would.

The technology argument is really irrelevant to the Electoral College argument. Beyond that, it would be extremely difficult to eliminate the Electoral College regardless of the merits of the idea because it would require a Constitutional amendment.

1) It is established by the Constitution;

2) It takes three-quarters of the states to amend the Constitution;

3) More than one-quarter of the States have more weight under the electoral college as far as percentage of the final vote than they would under popular vote -- thereby making it almost impossible to pass an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Age-Old Script

Children: Why.....

Adults: Because.....

Children: WHY!?!.....

Adults: STFU, eat your gd spinach, and get your sorry little azzes into bed 'fore we kick 'em into bed!!!

Children: Waaaahhhhhhh!!!

Adults: Ahhhhh, the sound of music!