What happens when Romney wins the national vote? How binding is this?

I'm so old I remember when everyone was pissed off about fruit flies and night time spraying! And he was was with Linda Rondstadt after that roller skating photo for "Living in the USA".

A patriotic boner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8i5PEhtWzY

>> What happens when Romney wins the national vote? How binding is this?

Ask Gore.

Nobody loves the electoral college. However, California loves liberals. This could actually lead to the freakish possibility that California votes for the more liberal candidate (100% likelihood) only to see its electoral votes go to the more conservative candidate (50% likelihood according to current polls showing the candidates in a dead heat). California liberals would howl. Thanks, Jerry.

Like most liberal plans, this one is designed to avoid a repeat of a specific situation that probably won't be repeated in exactly the same way.

LIke the special prosecutor law which was a good law when used to "investigate" Republican presidents but a horrible law when used to "persecute" a Democratic president, this has short-sighted written all over it.

As soon as a Republican wins the popular vote, all those righteous vows of fealty to the popular vote will go out the window.

Note that this story was from August 2011. California was a solid Republican state, at least in Presidential elections, until 20 years ago. If Romeny does get the majority popular vote nationally, California will not give Romney the EVs and the win, regardless of the law. The only fair way to award EVs is by Congressional District winners for President in the popular vote, and the two Senator votes going to the statewide popular vote winner, as in four states. The Electoral College is your friend.

So, in other words it is even more pointless to vote in CA, because Ca will go to the winner of the National popular vote, not to the person the people of CA vote for. Wow. That is completely asinine. It also means I'm voting for Romney in order to advance his popular vote count and possibly fuck with the assholes who wrote this shit law.

On second thought, maybe it's not so pointless to vote after all...

Assholio - that made me laugh.

Well, this law was signed last year so definitely in force this year. According to http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/, the other 7 states with this on their book are: Vermont, Maryland, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, District of Colombia, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. With the exception of Vermont, all of these states are likely to have cast their votes for Obama. Unintended consequences indeed.

Full disclosure: I support the electoral college. I understand many have good reasons for disagreeing.

That said, if the country wants direct election, then it should be done properly by constitutional amendment.

Am I missing something here? From what I have been reading it looks like Romney WILL win the popular vote, but lose in the EC.

This would almost ensure a Romney win, but I have not seen this discussed anywhere, nor have I heard of any lawsuits in any of the other states testing it's (State) Constitutionaliy.

And doesn't each member of the EC have the right to vote individually? I seem to remember that on rare occasion they will vote against what their constituants have instructed them

If this were to actually happen the riots would make Rodney King look like a picnic.

It is important to keep in mind the national popular vote only kicks in when the states who join have a total of 270 electoral votes between them.

Just wait until we try to elect a president by popular vote. It will make Florida 2000 look like a picnic. Now big states like California and New York have no benefit in jacking up their vote counts. In a direct election big states will mysteriously find votes should their guy lose. Then the other candidates stars will start finding votes.

The EC college members don't HAVE to vote for the winner of their state. I'm not sure they haven't, ever, but in theory they could vote for whoever they damn well choose. Or at least that was my understanding in American Government class, a few (ahem) years ago.

Thanks Trust. I knew I was something missing.

Some states have passed law preverting their EC electors from voting their ballots for anyone other than who won the state, though I'm not sure how the laws are written and if they simply impose a penalty on those who refuse to comply or what

As for this do enough states need to sign on to reach 270 for the laws to kick in, as in none of these state will act on the law until that point, or is that just the number needed for the law to overbalance the current scheme?

The movement by a group called National Popular Vote aims to prevent a repeat of 2000, when Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but Republican George W. Bush won the electoral vote. The group's proposed changes would ensure the winner of the national popular vote becomes president.

The winner of the national popular vote should become president. Not only would this prevent a repeat of 2000, it would also prevent a Democract from losing the popular vote and becoming president.

The winner of the national popular vote should become president.

Not necessarily.

The idea behind the Electoral College is to prevent a few big cities and densely populated areas from dominating national politics.

If winning the nationwide popular vote determined who becomes president, then New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and a few other large cities would elect the president.

Densely populated states like Connecticut, New Jersey, and Massachusetts would wield outsized influence in presidential elections.

Less densely populated states like Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado would have little voice in the presidential election and would be ignored by both the candidates and the president as inconsequential to being elected or reelected.

What happens when 80% of the country feels like it has no voice in electing the president and is being ignored by the Washington power brokers?

The winner of the national popular vote should become president. Not only would this prevent a repeat of 2000, it would also prevent a Democrat from losing the popular vote and becoming president. -- JD at October 30, 2012 5:13 PM

The problem with that concept is that disenfranchises every single voter in a rural district. If you use the stats from at the hundredth city you have 61,294,341 votes. That is 35 states out of 50. These are effectively AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, VA, WA, WI that would be the courted votes. Are you saying that RI and WV shouldn't be counted?

What should actually happen is repeal of the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

A 3000 seat house would work much better. And so would an Electoral College that was 3100 as well.

"lLess densely populated states like Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado would have little voice in the presidential election and would be ignored by both the candidates and the president as inconsequential to being elected or reelected.

What happens when 80% of the country feels like it has no voice in electing the president and is being ignored by the Washington power brokers?"

What happens now is that the most important states - the largest, and with the largest economies, like California, Texas and New York, are ignored in presidential politics except for raising money. If paying attention to the states that matter means that the few hundred thousand people who live in places like Wyoming get ignored and similar states that's fine. And yes I mean that Wyoming, Rhode Island, and the like are not as important as the states that drive our economy, and it's poor policy that the votes in these places count more than in places like Texas and California.

...like California, Texas and New York, are ignored in presidential politics except for raising money. If paying attention to the states that matter means that the few hundred thousand people who live in places like Wyoming get ignored and similar states that's fine.

New York, Texas, and California get ignored as a result of their own policies - not the design of the Electoral College. States choose how to allocate their Electoral College votes.

New York and California allocate all their electoral votes to the candidate winning the popular vote statewide, usually a Democrat.

In fact, these states are so reliably Democratic, that Democratic candidates don't have to bother to campaign in them, getting their Electoral votes virtually automatically, and Republicans don't bother to campaign in them because they won't get any Electoral votes from them.

The same is true for Texas, but with the Republicans getting the Electoral votes and the Democrats ignoring the state.

If those states followed New Mexico's lead and allocated Electoral College votes by congressional district with the two statewide electors going to the statewide winner, candidates would see a payoff to campaigning in them and would stop treating them as little more than party ATMs.