The NPV scheme proposes an interstate compact in which participating states agree in advance to automatically allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, disregarding the popular vote results in their states or what the relevant legislatures might then desire.
As John Samples of the Cato Institute has determined, the influence of a state under the Electoral College can be measured by dividing the state's electoral votes by the total electoral votes; the measure under the NPV is the number of a state's eligible voters divided by the total eligible votes in the country.
Why not? Every additional vote a losing candidate could obtain anywhere in the country could make the difference in winning or losing the national election-even if the extra vote would not change the results of the electoral vote in that particular state under the current system.
While the total of the national popular vote may be close, the vote totals in particular states may not be close at all-certainly not close enough to trigger a recount under that particular state's recount laws even if a losing candidate believes a national recount is warranted.
The winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes within 48 states necessitates that a candidate be popular enough to appeal to a broad electorate, including moderate voters, and provides the winner of the presidential race with both finality and a mandate even if his popular vote total is slightly below 50 percent.
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to win simultaneous elections across 50 states and the District of Columbia; the idea of concurrent majorities means that "The president gains a popular legitimacy that a single, narrow, national" election does not provide and emphasizes "The breadth of popular support for the winner."
Bradley Smith concludes that "The Electoral College clearly played a democratizing and equalizing role" in the 1876 and 1888 elections that "Almost certainly better corresponded to true popular sentiment than did reported popular vote totals." Why? Because in the 1876 election, for example, where Samuel Tilden defeated Rutherford B. Hayes in the popular vote, there was "Rampant vote fraud and suppression in the southern states [that] make the actual vote totals from that election unknowable." Similarly, in the 1888 election, Southern states voted overwhelmingly for Cleveland, the national popular vote winner, while Republican Benjamin Harrison carried the rest of the nation, winning 20 of 25 states.
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/destroying-the-electoral-college-the-anti-federalist-national-popular
As John Samples of the Cato Institute has determined, the influence of a state under the Electoral College can be measured by dividing the state's electoral votes by the total electoral votes; the measure under the NPV is the number of a state's eligible voters divided by the total eligible votes in the country.
Why not? Every additional vote a losing candidate could obtain anywhere in the country could make the difference in winning or losing the national election-even if the extra vote would not change the results of the electoral vote in that particular state under the current system.
While the total of the national popular vote may be close, the vote totals in particular states may not be close at all-certainly not close enough to trigger a recount under that particular state's recount laws even if a losing candidate believes a national recount is warranted.
The winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes within 48 states necessitates that a candidate be popular enough to appeal to a broad electorate, including moderate voters, and provides the winner of the presidential race with both finality and a mandate even if his popular vote total is slightly below 50 percent.
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to win simultaneous elections across 50 states and the District of Columbia; the idea of concurrent majorities means that "The president gains a popular legitimacy that a single, narrow, national" election does not provide and emphasizes "The breadth of popular support for the winner."
Bradley Smith concludes that "The Electoral College clearly played a democratizing and equalizing role" in the 1876 and 1888 elections that "Almost certainly better corresponded to true popular sentiment than did reported popular vote totals." Why? Because in the 1876 election, for example, where Samuel Tilden defeated Rutherford B. Hayes in the popular vote, there was "Rampant vote fraud and suppression in the southern states [that] make the actual vote totals from that election unknowable." Similarly, in the 1888 election, Southern states voted overwhelmingly for Cleveland, the national popular vote winner, while Republican Benjamin Harrison carried the rest of the nation, winning 20 of 25 states.
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/destroying-the-electoral-college-the-anti-federalist-national-popular
No comments:
Post a Comment