Change.Org Petition to Electoral College - Make Hillary Clinton
President on December 19

LINK: Web Link

As of this moment 2,107,031 supporters have signed this petition
for electors to make an independent choice when they cast their
votes on December 19th.

If everyone in the US knew about and had access to this petition
where would it be?

In Donald Trump's calm and conciliatory acceptance speech he
lauded Hillary Clinton's public service and hard work on her
campaign, while the very next day Rudy Giulianni spoke about
investigating and prosecuting her. Virtually everyone is angry
and frustrated at our political system these days, but the
reason our founding installed electors is to provide a bulwark
against the installation of a President that does not respect
our system or a potential tyranny who might tear it down. This
is simply a petition, free speech, and request for electors
to think about what they are doing and what the effect would
be to our country.

Think about it.

I'm all for changing the electoral college to the popular vote.

But there's a far easier way that states, including California, have already adopted.

Web Link

But unfortunately, we don't change the rules after the contest is over. You wouldn't do this if we had a different result.

This would apply to all future presidential elections.

This is actually a really bad idea for Hillary. The vast majority of Americans now consider Trump to have legitimately won the election. A lot may not like it, but they can accept it and are willing to give him a chance.

If Hillary becomes president through Electoral College shenanigans, the people will really think the system is rigged. Trust in government will plunge. And Clinton will have little legitimacy. And without legitimacy, she will merely be a four year lame duck president.

In the end, this will have done way more damage to our democracy than whatever Trump might do.

As for the popular vote issue, you would have a legitimate case if the candidates' strategies were designed to maximize the popular vote. Instead, the candidates focused all their resources on winning a majority of ELECTORAL votes. They all campaigned in states where electoral votes could be won. They spent the most money there. They pretty much ignored states, like California, New York, and Texas, that have tons of persuadable popular votes available.

It's sort of like coming to the end of a baseball game and saying the team with the most hits should be the winner, not the one with the most runs. The problem was both teams were not trying to maximize hits, which would have required a vastly different strategy and personnel.

The Electoral College written into our constitution (article II section 1) by James Madison. It is the ONLY fair and equitable solution to the "BIG STATE" vs "little state" problem. When the framers wrote it, it was states like Georgia they were trying to appease. Now it is because NOBODY wants CA, NYC or Texas to choose a dog catcher much less the leader of the free world. Hillary had 2.5 million more votes in CA than Trump. Yet more than HALF of the counties (read congressional districts) in CA voted for Trump over Hillary. The issue has become the "winner take all" Electoral College Vote. If CA had allocated Electoral Votes by Congressional Districts our 55 Electoral Votes would have been split between Trump and HRC. Nebraska and Maine still do this. 28 states weakened the Electoral College to become a Popular vote wins all state (including CA) so becareful what you ask for. if voting was by Congressional District with Senators receiving two votes (which was the ORIGINAL intent of the Framers). HRC would have lost by larger numbers since she didn't win ANY upstate NY Counties, Didn't win ANY counties outside of Chicago in IL, and lost half of the counties in CA.......Urban liberals gave her the popular votes she needed, by a wide margin (+90% in NYC, +80% Chicago, +85% of SF) The rest of the country said NO EFFING WAY and unfortunately for her, they count too.

Apple
I am almost exclusively concerned with the American people, not Hillary. I voted for Hillary, but she is not a good candidate or leader ... but she does not play the negative games and has some experience and competence. Trump fully lied about who and what he is. In terms of any election I've been involved in, this is the one most based on trickery and the least based on facts.

Everyone on both sides thinks, and probably correctly that the system is rigged ... that is not going to change or go away. My concern again is only for the continuity and survival of our country. I don't think we can take the hit that Newt Gingrich's un-voted ideas will bring into our government at the Presidential level - that were never discussed or explained. Anything that happens from now on is going to bad, that is a given.

Roy Thiele-Sardiña
Speaking of the electoral college ... take a look at this website and spreadsheet that computes the weight of different people's votes by state. They are hardly equal. Proportionately Californians do not even get a whole vote while Wyomans get more than 3 times the normal vote in the country.

Web Link

The electoral college demonstrably does not do what you claim or the Founders intended, and it has bascially been deconstructed and hacked to contribute to the power of the billionaires and corporations.

>>> It is the ONLY fair and equitable solution to the "BIG STATE" vs "little state" problem.

No. It makes it "fair" for the small states at the expense of voters on larger states.

@Drastic Dangers Require Drastic Action

There is a more up to date version of that tally which was used to redistribute votes based on the 2010 census (TX has 5 more). The skewing comes from the fact that "small" states get one congressman and two senators regardless of their population. so the electoral effect of the senators are distributed across the voters. So these small states (WY, RI, MT, DE, DC, etc) have more "power" per electoral vote than large states. That is EXACTLY what the framers wanted. it was to NOT disenfranchise the smaller states. And as Trump proved, going to WI, OH, MI and courting the NON-Urban population one can win the winner take all rule (which IMHO is the problem)

No matter how you slice NOBODY wants the large urban centers choosing our leaders. We (the plurality of America) don't trust CA, TX, NYC, CHI, MIA & PHL with that democratic power/burden. they simply do not speak for the country as this election just proved. You want to be liberal and vote 75% of a county for HRC(as did San Mateo)....go for it. You want the rest of the country to congratulate & emulate you for that error....maybe not.

Roy Thiele-Sardina

as a suggestion to all of you.....read the Federalist Papers. They are 83 very enlightening letters from the framers to the public.

They are available as a FREE download from Amazon for your Kindle.

Enjoy,
Roy

Sorry as a deplorable, I wouldn't even consisder it

@Drastic
Hillary isn't a carnival barker like Trump, but the American people don't trust her either. Plus, she represents the establishment, which is why many voted for Trump in the first place even though they find him unfavorable as well.

Why not advocate the Electoral College choose someone that the country holds in high esteem, such as Colin Powell, Robert Gates, or Mike Bloomberg? The choices should not be constrained among whom the major political parties picked.

In actuality, this is how the Electoral College is supposed to work. The founding fathers knew democracy could lead to some poor leaders every once in awhile. The electors can choose someone above board, above partisanship, honest, and can really unite the country.

As for the principle of "one man, one vote", The Constitution says that principle only applies to the federal government with respect to the House of Representatives, and then only within the context of each individual state. The Senate is NOT one man, one vote. The judiciary branch is NOT one man, one vote. The presidency is NOT one man, one vote.

And the reason why is the Constitution is built on a compact among the federal government, the states, and the people. Each has specific rights and sovereignty. And that is why the Constitution weights its checks and balances so that every entity's rights are protected and very difficult to take away.

Because the president was chosen by both the people and the states, he has political capital with both the House and the Senate.

Call Trump whatever you like, but he won according to the rules.

Wanting to change them is fine, but you don't do it after the game is over.

PS - I'm #NeverTrump.

Former President Bill Clinton has already damaged America enough on June 30, 2016 when he boarded the DOJ's Aircraft Uninvited, Unwelcome, and Unannounced. stayed onboard for 25 minutes.

That little trick proved that the DOJ is corrupt. I hope it was worth it to him.

The electoral college is here to stay. It was created to give the small states a larger voice and not be dominated by the larger states. The U.S. Senate was created for the exact same reason as the electoral college. Just to even get a proposed constitutional amendment considered you need 2/3 approval of both the House and Senate or 2/3 of the state legislatures calling for a Constitutional convention. Then to get the amendment approved 3/4 of all the state legislatures(currently 38 states) would need to vote yes to change the constitution.

If the electoral college were eliminated only 13 states would benefit and 37 states would have their representation lessened. Democratic States such as Bernie Sanders' Vermont and Joe Biden's Delaware would have 2/3 of their Presidential vote eliminated with the abolishment of the electoral college. So how do you think you would get 38 states to approve a change to the Constitution when 37 States would have their presidential vote lessened?

The States that would suffer (those with 10 electoral votes or less) currently are:

Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
Wisconsin
Alabama
Colorado
South Carolina
Kentucky
Louisiana
Connecticut
Oklahoma
Oregon
Arkansas
Iowa
Kansas
Mississippi
Nevada
Utah
Nebraska
New Mexico
West Virginia
Hawaii
Idaho
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Alaska
Delaware
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Vermont
Wyoming

Hillary for President in 2020. "The third time's a charm!"

I almost forgot. We would not have had a nation if at least 9 of the 13 states in the confederation did not agree to have the electoral college and the U.S. Senate. That would have been a non-starter. We would not have become a nation because of the ability of the large states to run rough shod over the small states.

Also most people claim we became a nation in 1776. Not true. We fought the revolutionary war for 7 years and only when the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 did our nation became a confederation of states. We weren't quite a nation yet because the 13 independent states in the confederation could not agree on the terms of the U.S. Constitution. So the individual states had to work out the terms with a series of compromises. After 4 years of arduous work the U.S. Constitution was adopted and signed in September 1787 which was a necessary but not sufficient condition. It still need to be ratified by 9 of the 13 states in the confederation. My argument is that the U.S. became a nation on June 21, 1788. That is when New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratify the Constitution. Some can equally argue that we became a nation when George Washington assumed the office on February 4, 1789. Your thoughts?

Yes, this is a definite go, Trump should not be President, too much baggage
in his cart, law suits, hater of women, doesn't like Muslins or Mexican.
He has no knowledge of what he is doing, he is for the rich people and screw the middle class and lower class people.
YOu need to get rid of him, he is not uniting the USA he is tearing it apart.
GOD HELP US NOW.

[Post removed; unoriginal material should be used only to support thoughts you have articulated as part of the conversation.]

And people were worried that Trump wouldn't accept the election results.

Ironic!

I agree that too many in the US now believe Trump won because he won the electoral votes. There is real danger of overturning enough electoral votes, but I admire the creativity.

A better target should be Trump's apparent reliance on the Republican establishment. He campaigned on being against the establishment but is embracing the most intransigent part of it - the republicans in congress. They are hellbent to overturn decades of progress on many fronts. Sure, some of Obama's programs are imperfect, but there are enormous dangers of ignoring climate change - and science, voting rights, women's rights, the rights of diverse populations, etc. Challenge Trump to be independent of all of the Establishment his supporters dislike.

Another target should be the potentially treasonous use of Russian-hacked information that was targeted to influence the US election. Trump's staff was in communication with Russia. Demand prosecution of those involved.

Here is a civic lesson for all those people signing an anti-electoral petition. Here is what it takes to change the constitution:
here are the steps:
- Elect 67 Senators who feel the same way
- Elect 290 Representatives feel the same way
- Have them vote to approve a NEW amendment to the constitution declaring Article II section 1 null and void.
- Then get 38 States to approve the repeal of Article and it's replacement by an ammendment via a vote of their legislature or citizens

And there you have, the electoral college is gone poof......now let's discuss the fact that rejection by just 13 states means it doesn't pass....I can think of at 25 small states that would tell all those people from NYC, CA, FL and TX to go pound sand.....so everyone please read up on civics before proposing ideas that want to make me want you all have the intelligence to vote......jeesh

Roy Thiele-Sardiña

I've been on the receiving end of Change.org petitioning. I like the idea of people power doing something more than just sitting on your butt complaining, but these petitions just generate SPAM. So I quickly blocked all Change.org emails from my server.

No doubt the deaf ears of our lawmakers and their staff have done the same. Don't put too much faith in this method. Write a paper letter instead. Or send a letter to the president elect with your top five suggestions for supreme court justices- he needs all the help he can get.

Do whatever you want ... for the NEXT election. Personally, I think the winner the popular vote should get the office and there other ways to accomplish this without amending the Constitution. Web Link

You don't change the rules after the game is played. That's unfair to everyone.

My candidate has lost before, but this is the first time I've felt America is descending into darkness with her choice. No good can come of this.

Pogo,

I am really surprised. I have agreed with just about every blog you have ever posted on the Almanac. But this time I disagree. Laws get passed all the time that are later deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. There is only one way to get the popular vote to determine who becomes president and that ONLY WAY is to amend the constitution. You see the Electoral College procedures were written into the U.S. Constitution (originally Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 and later amended by the twelfth amendment). Simply passing a law will not cut it.

The first step is getting either 2/3 approval of both the U.S.House of Representatives (290 or more votes) and Senate (67 votes) or alternatively 2/3 of the state legislatures calling for a Constitutional convention. That just gets it eligible for consideration. Now you still need to get the proposed amendment approved. To do that you need 3/4 of all the state legislatures (currently 38 states) to vote yes to change the constitution.

So Pogo when 37 smaller states will get their votes lessened and only 13 large states will get their votes increased how do you propose to convince 25 smaller states to vote against their best interests?

I voted for Clinton, but this is a really bad idea.

Stop wearing safety pins and liking Facebook posts, and do something that actually could make a difference, like working for the 2018 midterm elections.

The electors are free agents. They can go rogue and nothing can be done about it. Now that Trump is revealing his plans for making America great, and they include massive deportations, putting the Trump family in a position to loot the government while taking "no salary," making a litmus for Supreme Court nominations the intent to overturn Roe v Wade and make abortions back-alley procedures in unsafe conditions while jailing doctors who save lives it is time for some of our Silicon Valley billionaires to quietly tell some of the Trump electors that they will pay them one million dollars to prevent Trump from being named president-elect in early December. After that happens, we can work on getting the electoral college bypassed by using the procedure mentioned in earlier blogs. Don't ever think that the Constitution is holy writ. As some have noted, it was designed to attract support from slave-holding, rich planters who were already worried about the spread of abolitionism and it provided no rights for any but the property-holders and wealthy. It was an 18th century look at the world at a time most of the "Founders" thought democracy a dirty word. The Senate is an equally bizarre and unfair body; as bad as the House of Lords was in Britain until shortly after the turn of the 20th century. Wyoming has as much impact on proposals in the Senate as does California, even though California pays for most of the bills while states like Wyoming and Mississippi spend the money provided by a handful of successful and populated states. The Constitution is strangling the political process.

History Guy,

You should rethink your proposed bribery scheme. Bribery of a public official, whether elected or appointed is a violation of Chapter 11 of the United States Code.

However the State of California will pay each presidential elector $10 and five cents per mile round trip from his/her home to the State Capitol in Sacramento (California elections code § 6909)

Hank -

States can (and do) change the way their electoral college electors vote. As one example, not all states use the "winner take all" formula. Some allocate by Congressional districts.

Similarly, a state can easily require its electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote. That would be a far simpler and easier way to accomplish the same thing.

As for "small states" versus "large states," the Senate is intended to rectify that. But unlike senators that represent only their state, the president represents the entire country. For that reason, I believe that it should be the one office that is determined by a pure popular vote.

Of course (a) that's not going to happen and (b) it would really change the way candidates campaign and give much more attention to California, New York and Texas instead of Iowa, New Hampshire and Georgia.

And it's okay to disagree, Hank!

Pogo,

as you've described Nebraska and Maine are the ONLY two states that allocate their electoral votes by congressional district and have done so since 1992 and 1972 respectively. In fact until they did so, every state has been winner take all since 1832, until those states chose to change.

I saw an electoral map based on congressional districts with the senators going to the state winner....it's even uglier for HRC than the current counts. mostly because she "over dominated" cities like NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. with large populations and not many extra congressional districts. look at the map of NY State to understand how badly she would have done.

The BIGGEST impediment to making the change to popular vote is that it would take 67 Senators, 280+ Congressmen, then 38 states to ratify the change, and the "small" states would NEVER vote for it.

Roy Thiele-Sardina

This can and is being done without a constitutional amendment:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com

My point, Roy, was not that states must choose between "winner takes all" or reflect Congressional districts, it's that they can do whatever they want. And 13 states (including our beloved California) have already decided that their electoral college electors will vote for the candidate with the most popular votes.

It's not that difficult and, just as they did when choosing to align to Congressional districts, it requires no constitutional change.

As Mr. Carpenter and I already pointed out, it's already being done. You should click on the link.

Actually EVERY state except 2 is a winner take all Electoral State.

Roy

Are you purposefully obfuscating, or does the obtuseness come naturally? Have you clicked through and read the link? Your "2 state" statement, while correct, certainly ignores the proposal discussed by multiple posters.

Of course, we should respect the results of the election, with the current rules.

As far as the popular vote is concerned: I don't think which state you live in really determines your interests that much anymore. I've lived in big states, I've lived in medium sized states ... my opinion shouldn't have mattered more when I lived in the medium sized states. I don't think states' boundaries define our likely self-interest all that well. Now, there's a legitimate rural/big city divide... you have that within California. But even there, I don't think the rural/city divide should be *the* defining issue. I'd really prefer 1 person/1 vote, and protect groups with special interests (yes, I used that phrase; it can be legit) in other ways.

...and if the election results were reversed (HRC Electoral votes, DJT Popular vote), especially by margins as slim as these, the Electoral College system would, in it's current form, be heralded as a masterful thing of beauty protecting us from the (insert negative comments from above (e.g. dark days, etc..)...

This thread, and so many others like this one, sound like trying to play board games with a 5 year old... change the rules to suit the player.

"Living well is the best revenge" and personally I will be doing my part to unify the people I am in contact with, Listen to their opinions and concerns, educate as to my perspective, agree to disagree where needed and build together. These tantrums (protests, social media, verbal abuse, referring to life long friends as rapists because of how they cast their vote) is doing more to DIVIDE this country than the election. 18 months of campaigning out done by this.

Actions speak louder than words, let's put down our "Love Trumps Hate" signs and prove it, show it, model for the kids too young to vote your view that this is a set-back and will be overcome peacefully and respectfully. "F-Trump, Not my president, graffiti, vandalism, blocking traffic (and in some cases getting injured doing so) and violence is sending our youth and our country the diametric opposite message as to the words being used.

Honor your candidate by showing them some respect.

The Electoral College is undemocratic and outmoded.it has disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters. Please join me making every vote count by signing this petition.

The Electoral College is undemocratic and outmoded. It has disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters. Please join me in making every vote count by signing this petition.

@WestMenloMom

It has disenfranchised thousands of "big city" (not even "big state" voters) and that was the Framers intent. NOBODY was S, NYC, Chicago, TX or FL electing the president on their own. Just as the Framers didn't want NY and PA to do it in 1787 when it was written.

The petition is completely misguided. Everyone needs to study their Civics book. I will repeat a previous post since you apparently missed the requirements:
....here are the steps to get rid of the electoral college:
- Elect 67 Senators who feel the same way
- Elect 290 Representatives feel the same way
- Have them vote to approve the repeal of the Article II Section 1 of the constitution and replace it with another amendment.
- Then get 38 States to approve the repeal of the Article II Section 1 of the constitution and replace it with another amendment.

I hate to state the obvious, but this is a treacherous path to take. All it would take is 13 states to say no, and poof.....your dream is gone. I can personally name 25 states that wouldn't trust ANY of the leftists in CA with this much responsibility. All you have to do is look at the electoral map from ANY election since 1968 (attached at the bottom of this message to remind you)and notice all those "small state" red states in the middle of the map. Those are the reasons this is a silly folly. But hey, you want to feel better gathering signatures, go for it. Just remember there are lots of doubters out there.

Roy Thiele-Sardina

Web Link

All this worrying and hand wringing. Petition all you want. The people have spoken. Trump is your president. Don't like it. Ok, protest. Don't be offended if I could care less. G

"disenfranchised thousands of "big city" and that was the Framers intent"

Where is that declared about "big cities"? Seems to me they were most interested in getting the Slave States on board.

And have you bothered to look at Pogo's link yet?

Thank you, homo sapiens but I have to assume ignorance is bliss.

You are right they meant big states. Have you read the Federalist Papers? it's all in there.

Roy

Pogo,

Your proposal to have California give its 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote will never fly. The Democratic California Legislature would never agree to it. The reason is that in all the elections from 1992 forward, 7 consecutive Presidential elections, California has voted consistently Democratic. In 2004 George Bush won the national popular vote and John Kerry won the California popular vote. If the California legislature were to have endorsed your plan before the 2004 general election then the California Secretary of State, Kevin Shelley, a Democrat would have had to certify 55 Republican electors. How do you think heavily Democratic California would have reacted to that? What comes to mind is that every Democrat State Senator and Democratic Assembly Person who voted for that ill-advised scheme who weren’t going to be termed out in the next election would be replaced by another Democrat.

I am not too terribly thrilled with our State legislature but I have to give its Democrat members credit for their instinct to survive. Consider that in all the elections where the President sought a second term since 1948—8 out of 10 elections (1948, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984, 1996, 2004. and 2012) in the second term the incumbent won the popular vote. The exceptions are Jimmy Carter in 1980, and George H.W. Bush in 1992. So given ceteris paribus conditions the odds are more likely than not that Donald Trump will most likely win the popular vote in 2020.

How do you propose to convince a single California legislator that your plan is a good one when the odds of the Democratic Party winning the popular vote State wide going forward in the foreseeable future for Presidential elections is close to 100% while winning the popular vote nationwide is closer to 50%. I will bet you a Kobe beef dinner with Fugu appetizers at Alexanders that you will not be able to convince the California Legislature to go along with your National Popular vote proposal.

"Your proposal to have California give its 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote will never fly. "

Sorry but it has already flown:

"On August 8, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown has signed the National Popular Vote bill, making California the 9th jurisdiction to enact the bill. On January 13, 2012, the Department of Justice cleared the National Popular Vote bill under the Voting Rights Act."

"The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide (i.e., all 50 states and the District of Columbia). Written Explanation It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes, and will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more electoral votes. Most recently, the bill was passed by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, and 37–21 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House."

Web Link

You owe Pogo "a Kobe beef dinner with Fugu appetizers at Alexanders"

Get over it - she lost. Move on. Suck it up buttercup.

Peter,

Your should read the Bill more carefully.

"This compact would only become effective if states cumulatively possessing a majority of the total electoral votes have ratified the compact."

That hasn't even come close to happening. What you have is a law in limbo. Let me know when it becomes effective.

If Trump wins the 2020 national popular vote, the next California Governor, probably a Democrat, will most likely ask the Democratic controlled legislature to repeal the Law- which hasn't and most likely would not go into effect if Trump wins the national popular vote then.

Also there will be a new DOJ. It could take a different stance on the legality of the Obama DOJ interpretation of the National Voting Rights Act- but that most likely won't be until after Trump gets a conservative Justice confirmed on the SCOTUS. Because, if the Trump Justice Department reverses the Obama Justice Department ruling you can be sure that the case will be heard by and ruled on by the Supremes.

States representing 160 Electoral College votes have passed the legislation. When states representing another 110 Electoral College votes pass the legislation then electors from all of the states will cast their votes in accordance with the national popular vote.

A survey of 800 Florida, which has 29 Electoral College votes, voters conducted on January 9-10, 2009 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President. By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 88% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among others. By gender, support for a national popular vote was 88% among women and 69% among men. By age, support for a national popular vote was 79% among 18-29 year olds, 78% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65. By race, support for a national popular vote was 80% among whites (representing 70% of respondents), 69% among African Americans (representing 13% of respondents), 79% among Hispanics (representing 13% of respondents), and 72% among others (representing 4% of respondents). The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 1/2%.

Peter,

You can speculate all you want. Let me know when it happens. Also regardless of what the law says The majority of the states cannot impose their will on the states whose legislatures did not approve the National Voting Rights Act. That is unconstitutional. . The U.S. Constitution specifically states each state shall determine how its electors are chosen. The only way you can change the Constitution is to amend it. Laws that are passed that are in contradiction to the Constitution are invalid. Since the electoral college is specifically called out in the constitution you can't just pass a law to defeat it. You have to amend the constitution. That is the only way it can happen.

The first step in the Constitutional Amendment Process is getting either 2/3 approval of both the U.S. House of Representatives (290 votes or more ) and Senate (67 votes or more) or alternatively 2/3 of the state legislatures calling for a Constitutional convention. That just gets it eligible for consideration. Now you still need to get the proposed amendment approved. To do that you need 3/4 of all the state legislatures (currently 38 states) to vote yes to change the constitution.

Until that time each state determines how its electors are chosen. The Constitution was written so that the big states could not gang up on the small ones. The thirteen smallest states acting in a block (West Virginia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming) could defeat the proposed amendment to have all the electors from all the states vote in accordance to the national popular vote. All it takes is 13 states with 46 or more electoral votes.

There is no need to amend the Constitution or to impose anything on any State that does not adopt the National Popular Vote measure.

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....” The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in 1789.

The National Popular Vote interstate compact would not take effect until enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). Under the compact, the winner would be the candidate who received the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) on Election Day. When the Electoral College meets in mid-December, the national popular vote winner would receive all of the electoral votes of the enacting states.

The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election.

Peter,

So if the Compact is successful (270 + electoral votes) before 2020 and suppose Donald Trump wins the national popular vote in 2020 (as 8 out of 10 incumbents have since 1948) but loses California in a landslide are you telling me that the California Secretary of State (most likely a Democrat) will certify a slate of 55 Republican electors even though California voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic Presidential candidate? Seeing is believing.

Hank -

That is so nice of you, thank you. I haven't had Kobe beef since I was in Japan so it'll be a real treat. Given that it's the holidays, perhaps we should do this after the first of the year.

Looking forward to this. Really.

Pogo,

The California law is conditional on other states whose collective electoral vote (including California) is greater than or equal to 270 approving it. If the other states approve it and California does not back out of the deal before it is approved then I owe you a delicious Kobe beef steak. I didn't see the Fugu. I guess the chef is not registered. I had a friend who lived in Japan named Bill Lenowski who said "Hank that fish is so delicious it is almost worth dying for". He also said about 6 people a year in Japan do not live to tell about it. Some other people get swollen and numb tongues and face. Most people who eat it love it.

I forgot one important thing. The compact has to be approved by Congress or else its null and void.

U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 10
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay".

Given that 37 small states would suffer from it and 13 only larger states would benefit approval in the U.S. Senate would be unlikely and the compact does require approval of both the House and Senate. I'm not saying it couldn't be done but it would be an uphill battle.

Donald J Trump: The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy & We are not a democracy!

Why should the vote of a Texan or an Arizonan be worth less than a vote of a Vermonter? Under this Rigged System, most campaign (90%+)events were held in just 12 states comprising ~30% of the America's population).

Trump said it best:

* “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!”
(Nov. 6, 2012)

* “More votes equals a loss… revolution!”
(Nov. 7, 2012)

* "This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!"
8:33 PM - 6 Nov 2012

* "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
8:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012


Rigged.

Yesterday's Washington Post had an illuminating article on the Electoral College.

Web Link

I just read a insightful comment on the WAPO article. It is hard to find so with the Almanac Editor's indulgence, I will provide an excerpt. It was made by a gentleman named Blaine McAvoy earlier today. My only disagreement is that he referred to the individual states as sovereign states. I wouldn't quite characterize them that way. He said:

"Excellent article. I doubt any proposed amendment to the Constitution that calls for abolishing the electoral college will ever receive the requisite two-thirds approval of Congress and, thereafter, has little to no chance of receiving approval from three-fourths of the states necessary for ratification".

"One of the reasons for reluctance by the founding fathers to base Presidential elections purely on popular vote is their concern that there could be discrepancies associated with either casting or reporting vote totals. They theorized that the electoral college system minimized the effects of those discrepancies. Today, there is intense resistance by some to voter ID laws and further opposition to more thorough oversight of the absentee ballot process."

"Unlike most nations, the USA is a union of sovereign states. 435 electoral votes are apportioned to the states on the basis of population with an additional 3 for the District of Columbia. However, the remaining 100 electoral votes have nothing to do with population distribution. Each state receives 2 electoral votes, one for each Senator. As the author correctly points out, the Senate was created to represent the rights of the individual states. The 10 most populous states account for approximately 54% of the nation's population. If national popular vote alone is the criteria used to select the President, 40 of the 50 states have a reduced role in determining who leads the nation".

"Absent a constitutional amendment, we could follow the lead of Nebraska and Maine by casting electoral votes on the basis in which they are apportioned to the states. The popular vote winner within each congressional district receives that district's electoral vote and the statewide popular vote winner receives the 2 electoral votes apportioned based on the Senate".

If the president was chosen by popular vote, the whole presidential election dynamic changes. That has some positives and some negatives. There is no "perfect" election system.

A popular vote system attracts many more candidates. All you need to win is a plurality of votes, not a majority of electoral votes.

If this year's election were determined by popular vote, Mike Bloomberg would have thrown his hat in the ring. Evan McMullin would have campaigned in more places than Utah. Gary Johnson's and Jill Stein's support would likely grown to around 20% or so altogether. Instead, both these candidates' support sank as election day approached as voters did not want to "waste" their vote.

In the end, Clinton, Trump, or Bloomberg most likely would have won, but I can't say for sure. And whoever did win would have something like 25% of the vote or less.

A president who wins with that small percentage of the vote has very little political capital to implement his or her agenda unless his/her party is already in power. That makes for a less effective leader. Election systems should empower leaders to make political change, not sap them.

When the next election comes around, more candidates will be jumping in. The percentage needed to win gets smaller. The chances of a fringe candidate getting elected increases substantially.

This situation is exactly what the Electoral College system prevents. The EC keeps fringe candidates away from running. It ensures that whoever becomes president commands substantial national support, not just be a regional or one issue candidate.

I remember how my daughter used to complain and cry when she'd lose a board game. This election brings me back to those days, except I'm watching my adult neighbors. Get a grip people. What tender snowflakes you have become.

Excellent viewpoints and discussion by all but I felt that it was time to bring us back around to the real problem and why so many are distraught about the outcome of the election.

Ladies and gentlemen I present to you, a man all our children can now look up to, president-elect Donald J. Trump.

"I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try and f*ck her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture." I moved on her like a b*tch, but I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony t*ts and everything. She's totally changed her look."

"I've got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... Grab them by the p*ssy. You can do anything." - Recorded Access Hollywood conversation between Donald Trump and Billy Bush

Then this:

A former Miss Finland is the twelfth woman to publicly say that presidential nominee Donald Trump sexually assaulted her. - People Magazine, October 31st 2016 (Eight days before the election!)

Regardless of HRC's value as a candidate, we have permanently tarnished the presidency by electing this clearly incapable, bullying sexual assaulter. America's moral compass has been irreparably smashed to pieces.

At this point the petition has 4,377,000 signatures.
I wonder how many would sign it if they knew about it?

If we end up with Donald Trump as President, the only thing to say
is that we have lost our collective minds and all the checks and
balances and safety measure our Founders were so clever and
meticulous in crafting, and amazing job, have lasted as long as
they could, a good bit over 200 years, and now we get a
plutocrat of no moral fiber and his centerfold status symbol
wife as leaders of the world.

The next question is will the world fall apart or will the West
band together after realizing that the US has fallen from First
World Status ... except in military force? It is now up to
some other country to carry the torch of civilization.

The issue here is Donald Trump and what he is politically, and
how does he fit into the American political system, if he does?

Donald Trump purported to be a populist, a man for the people.

Yet, what do we have, a man with
• No experience
• Less understanding of our system than an average well informed American.
• Low moral character if not a sex offender, or a financial swindler.
• A man involved in over 4000 lawsuits, some of the larger ones we know have merit.
• A business man whose reputation for cheating people is widespread.
• A candidate who blundered through the Presidential debates not answering 1 question.
• A candidate whose subliminal appeals to the least informed and often least moral voters got him elected.
• A President elect who made a conciliatory election speech and yet ignored it the next ...

moment as he has not taken seriously virtually anything he said during the campaign.

A man who threatened the opposing candidate with legal retribution and fired up his
violent supporters who were openly calling for her imprisonment or death.

A man who gave the impression of being a political moderate, populist and someone
who opposed the status quo, and yet when he was apparently elected, he claimed an
unwarranted mandate, or his followers did, and began to gather towards himself the
most extreme people in the far right, including Steve Bannon a man who is off the
dial as far as being a member of the alt-Right ... the people who cannot have a political
discussion without calling the other side Libtards, or the opposing candiate Hitlery.

This candidate should be unacceptable to any real American. It is not right to use the
strategies of deconstructing our system in order to infiltrate and destroy that system,
that is clearly outside the boundaries of anything our system stands for, and just
because someone gets elected by fooling the people, and turning off so many others
that they do not vote so we have the lowest turnout in 12 years does not mean this
guy is President.

We are sufficiently technically advanced that any system that is not perfect and
even some that are can be analyzed, deconstructed and way invented to penetrate
and take over that system - in our case representative democracy. This is the
core our of country, we cannot have an election about that, even if it is not
mentioned in the campaign or debates, it's like voting against human rights.
Our electors ought to have the intelligence to understand when a fraction of
the populace is not right.

This has been a farce. There is such a thing as following the rules, the letter of the
law, but not the spirit, and Donald Trump is the American spirit killer under the guise
of lots of money and power which every year has taken over more and more of our
society.

The danger here is clear and present, and it is better to have a bad or incompetent
or even a minor corrupt President, if that is what you believe about Hillary Clinton,
than it is to have a man bent on the destruction of a system and a way of life.

In the last 100 years we have seen this happen in Germany and Italy and this is
close enough that if there are electors that can see their way to the patriotic duty
to keep Donald Trump from the Presidency and have the courage to do that ...
all power to them and God bless.

Just knowing and seeing that absolute power has corrupted this man - shown
by this own claims of sexual assault, and claims by women of the same thing.
Our system MUST use a higher standard and avoid the red flags and the appearance
of impropriety ... a phrase which has has been so abused and misused and
mostly ignored. Donald Trump is a walking image problem and the USA cannot
have this man leading it or the Free World. We have all the warnings lined up
and flashing red ... is there anyone who has sense enough not to ignore it?

Drastic Dangers -

"If we end up with Donald Trump as President..."

News alert: there was an election last Tuesday. The results were in all the papers.

The electors in the electoral college are political operatives from their respective parties. Those operatives that have pledged to vote for Trump aren't going to change their votes no matter how hard you stomp your feet or pout. It is rare for there to be even one or two "faithless electors" who don't vote as pledged in the electoral college.

My advice is to try harder in 2020.

Trump is unpredictable, dangerously so in many regards, but he may surprise us by acting more moderately now that he has won.

The real problem of this election is that he ran as a Republican. The Republican establishment in Washington is giddy with power. Unchecked, they will undo a lot of important initiatives that make our lives and future better and safer.

It would be far better for all our energies to be spent on the 2018 election for some balances to that power, to making it easier instead of harder for people to vote, and to eliminating the extreme gerrymandering that has put so many Republicans in office when their states' popular votes would have elected some Democrats.

wrong target -

You are exactly right. People should stop complaining or trying to change the results of an election that was held 10 days ago. They would be far better off thinking about the election that's two years ahead. And controlling the states is a big deal. In that respect, Republicans are thriving.

The Democratic bench is thin and old. Clinton, DiFi, Leahy, Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, Reid (retiring) are getting on in years.

Pogo - You and other Trump "followers" may not be so smug in the coming years. A nuclear arsenal has just been given to a man who has never held elected office of any kind, brags about not preparing for important assignments, and sends out childish angry Tweets at three in the morning.

Our republic is in grave danger and refugees or terrorists will be the least of humanity's worries if he ends-up actually being sworn-in.

CNN Republican Primary Debate
Wednesday, September 16, 2015

HEWITT: Of the three legs of the triad, though, do you have a priority? I want to go to Senator Rubio after that and ask him.

TRUMP: I think — I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me.

He obviously had no idea what it even was, and probably still doesn't, but here it is for reference.

A nuclear triad refers to the nuclear weapons delivery of a strategic nuclear arsenal which consists of three basic components: strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

This version of "political change" is the equivalent of having a random guy from row three fly the airliner or some guy from the hospital lobby perform brain surgery.

For the record, I have been #NeverTrump since he announced. Not that it matters but I supported Kasich.

"The Democratic bench is thin and old."

Both benches are old, none of the current Dems will run. Look at the other side - Trump beat 16 generally awful candidates; I am aware of your choice Kasich, but he proved to be a weak campaigner.

Who does the GOP have behind Trump? Unknown. Cruz and Rubio? Yes, I know, the safe bet is that Trump runs again in 2020, but there has to be some speculation that something happens between now and then. It IS Donald J. Trump we are talking about, after all.

2020 Dems have already been discussed (how sad is the 24 hr news cycle!!) and none of the ones you mentioned are included except Warren. She'll be too old in 2020. Kaine did not inspire. Really depends how deep and long the next recession is, and how it effects national mood, IMHO.

Cory. Julian. Kamela. Kirsten. Several southerners. The twins from Minnesota. Russ or Sherrod from the Mid-West. Just look to see who is attacked hardest - that's the one in which the GOP is most fearful.

This won't happen, but we all know who is the best speaker around is, and has the highest favorables...

(drum roll)

Michelle.

Laugh now, but a reasonable size economic calamity and we'll all look back at 75 months of private sector job growth, longingly.

Check back here in three years.

I cannot help but thinking the Democrats and even Republicans always made a complete
and utter mistake thinking all they had to do was to point and focus on Trump's behavior,
statements, tweets and history.

What happened I think is that over time people heard all of that stuff and wondered why,
if Trump is so bad, is he still in the race and doing so well? ( I have to wonder if Trump
used Italy's Berlusconi as a model campaign, and maybe someone from Italy could comment
on how Berlusconi did that, because he is certainly Italy's Trump )

So, what happened in every debate or interchange, is that a Republican would get in a
thing with Trump and think that just pointing at him and scoffing was enough ... while they
themselves never had an answer or solution. Plus, all of the Republican candidates were
terrible ... and honestly that includes Kasich who was though probably the least worst.

After outlasting all the Republican opponents, Trump went on to confront Hillary, and mindlessly
Hillary did the same thing. In debates she never responded to the questions that undercut her
about her likeableness, her role in Libya, the Clinton Foundation, and her emails ... after all that
time. As we can see by Trump, and answer delivered with confidence, any story that creates
some kind of imagined or real intimacy works ... but Hillary just always showed her facade and
never answered anything ... to the point that in the last debate even though I was committed to
voting for her, I was mad at her and did not like her.

To use Trump's word Hillary was "schlonged" ... which is another loutish expression Trump
popularized. She did it to herself in so many ways. In beating Bernie Sanders in such a
questionable way ... why would she ever think that it just took being a women and a brute
for an opponent to win? If she had cared about winning more than she cared about pushing
her Clintonian agenda, she would have hugged onto Bernie for dear life and they both would
have worked together. As it was Bernie tried his best from afar, even have being shoved aside
for the twinkle-toed idiot Tom Kaine. Hillary was simply not a real leader. Hillary did not have
a vision that she could articulate, except to tepidly give in to what Bernie was saying after she
kind of won by technicality ... and the whole idiotic Democratic party was supporting her ...
terrible, at least some Republicans had the good sense to distance from Trump.

But having a competent listener concensus-forming Democrat in the White House would be
better than this wolf in sheep's clothing far-right wacko Trump who in all honesty really did not
get elected on anything other than entertainment value. The Founding Fathers would have said
on seeing this, that Trump's election was what they were trying to guard against, and I'd bet
the farm that to a one all of them would agree on bypassing Trump through the Electory College,
and the more they knew about present day politics they stronger they would feel about that.

I think we can see that Trump survives like Hitler does ... by people appeasing him because they
can't imagine what bad stuff he will do and he keeps making promises that he breaks. Somehow
people are expecting that at some point when the stakes get high enough he will start acting like
an American President.

Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, Gen. Flynn ... no ... no, he will never behave like a President and
if he gets in for even 2-4 years he is going to do a lot of damage to people and the country,
and tilt the game so that it will be easier for him to stay in for the full 8 if not even longer.
Who'd have ever though that a President of the US could be a clear and present danger to the US?

Electors - elect someone else.

Oh, and I forgot to add that HIllary won the race (popular vote), and had greater support as well considering that most Democrats did not even bother to vote they were so rope-a-doped by the supposedly left-wing media into thinking that Hillary was going to win. The Republicans eeked out a weak technical victory through several different ways to cheating, and now are going all extreme and claiming they have a mandate ...

Folks, this is not how our system does or was supposed to ever work. It cannot work like this into the future, so you know what the Republicans have in mind if a one-party system where they ignore the majority of the people, and yet still parade about on how great America is even though they do not respect any part of it and seek to change it all.

Looks like a very long four years LOL!

Talk about cheating,

As Reid said when asked about lying about Romneys' taxes,

"He lost didn't he?" This is how he justified cheating?

As for saying Trump didn't win the election because now you don't like the electoral college, Would you be saying that if Clinton had won the EC and not the popular vote?

Not only did the Democrats lose, they lost cheating, Let's not forget Donna Brazil telling the DNC that from time to time she get's the debate questions ahead of time from CNN. That means CNN cheated, Donna Brazil cheated, the DNC cheated and Clinton cheated by accepting the question. In case no one has noticed Brazil has not been seen since. To add insult to injury, they screwed Bernie and had to fire the chair person during the convention. They eat their own.

You have to give Trump credit, He beat Hilliary, Bill, Barack, Michelle, Bernie, and all the cry baby music and Hollywood stars,

That's quite a crowd to take on.

My personal opinion is what put the Republicans over the top besides being outworked was the arrogance of the Dems,
"Obama, " I will be personally insulted if you don't vote for Clinton" "This is My Legacy!"
Albright " There is a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hilliary,
The Clinton campaign popping champagne the night before election day when Trump was doing 5 stops up to 1:00 in the morning.

Total arrogance.

Now they want to cheat again and change the rules after the fact for the electoral college and go with the popular vote,

Lick your wounds, stop crying and go back to the drawing board,

btw, any one notice what the stock market has done the results were announced?

get over it ... now that is an interesting name with a fairly hyporitical message.
Did you Republicans get over Obama in either of the elections when he won
with a massive majority ... i.e. there was no doubt about the result? Please
answer that question as if you cannot acknowledge and explain why Republicans
spent 8 years question Obama's birthplace, calling him a Muslims, fighting the
smallest action he took, and refusing to conform a Conservative judge to the
Supreme Court that Republicans had even recommended as a valid neutral
choice. Because if you cannot explain that, you have no standing to ask that
question or to cast doubt on Democrats, or to say to anyone - get over it.

-- As for saying Trump didn't win the election because now you don't like
-- the electoral college, Would you be saying that if Clinton had won the
-- EC and not the popular vote?

First of all, I am not complaining about the Electoral College, per se, because
about 4.5 million people are seeking redress through it. So maybe read a little
slower and more thorough.

The thing is that Trump did not win with a majority, he did no really win at
all, and this is getting to be a habit with Republicans.

-- Trump won in states where the Voting Rights Act was allowed to lapse and
there were about 1/2 the number of places to vote.

-- On top of that Republicans used trickery to redraw the districts to make it
easier to win. You would think with all that "rigging" that they would have
done better, but they did not.

-- On top of that names of felons that had a "minority" ring to them were sent
to battleground states in order to remove like sounding names ... not even
good matches ... that is different middle names, different first names, even
different sexes. Go check about Willie Nelson the singer and what happened
to him.

-- Trump campaign was in contact with Russia during the election.

-- Trump campaign worked with the FBI to push Comey to release the letter
about Hillary's emails.

There is a lot of reason to nix Trump. Aside from being a uniter as his brief flirtation
with Presidentiality exhibited, he turned around the next day and began driving
to the extreme right. Since it is categorically proveably even at this point that Donald
Trump has no intention of being everyone's President, there are a lot of really
great reasons he should be ejected from the election results.

Any proof of the Russian contact w/ the Trump campaign, You are aware of Bill Clinton getting paid to speak in Russia, then getting a personal phone call from Putin?

Any comment on the Donna Brazil, CNN incident?

Unless you're planning a violent uprising, You might want to go along with Hilliary Clinton, and President Obama and accept the results.

To accept this result and candidate would be to abandon nearly everything that the founding fathers established and envisioned for our country.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. - Thomas Jefferson

Accepting this unprecedented walking insult to our democracy normalizes the concept of our great country having a sitting president who admits to having not read a book since 1992 and boasts about sexually assaulting our sisters, daughters, and mothers. I will not rest comfortably until this ignorant, bigoted sexual assaulter is impeached and replaced by Mike Pence, which will most likely not take long.