We are a democratic republic, and the electoral college was a compromise, much like Senate allocation, designed to give states a say in the process. We can argue that the three occasions it “failed” by not being aligned with the popular vote subverted democracy, but the elections within the states were democratic and required candidates to earn votes in places they would otherwise ignore. It requires candidates to make direct pitches to voters and volunteers to knock door to door. I suspect the change to an NPV format would end this, we would see giant media campaigns because personal contact with the voters would be irrelevant and state based efforts would cease. Seeing that most undecided voters live in swing states that’s where the campaigns would still be. Unless you want blue mass to become less Republican it is doubtful many Romney campaigners would have door knocked here or he’d have spent resources here under NPV either since his percentage here is still negligible. He might’ve bothered with CA or NY but those states would likely get swamped with ads rather than personal contact. And seeing as no red states have signed on to the compact its a non starter and will be until the GOP is on the short end of the stick, but I suspect, as was the case with filibuster reform when Bill Frist proposed it, many Democrats would find newfound love for the college.

Grassroots elections are most common at the local level, and max out at the state level. Based on my experience its hard to nationalize local races, but a Presidential campaign is in effect 12-18 state level campaigns rather than a national one. As recently as 1984 when 49 states, including this one, went for Reagan, we has national campaigns but not in this era if polarization. The polarization would preclude a national campaign if we switched to NPV-but we would expand the field of state campaigns from the 12-18 states now to a much bigger field, closer to 40. New England would still get ignored in either change (NH, CT and ME maybe not). But the substantial number of Republicans in IL or CA would no longer be disenfranchised, neither would southern blacks and Democrats in general. Texas would be competitive.

A good model is the Dem primary in 2008 where delegates were allocated by states and every state got attention. A national same day primary would result in a Hillary victory and would’ve been an air war only. Grassroots campaigns won the campaign for Obama, say goodbye under NPV

Would you have voted for Romney had he won the popular vote? Even I there was an electoral tie?

If the answer is no than quit talking about NPV and popular voting compacts. Congressional district is the best idea. Opens every state to competition without killing grassroots campaigning. Having done my share of door knocking in swing states I say its the best way to get votes out. Our ground game was better than theirs since Obama believes in grassroots. We could also have a situation where a Bloomberg becomes President with 33% of the vote and just does huge ad buys. The EC forces you to get a majority
of states on your side and to do grassroots campaigning. Though putting it at the district level puts more states in play and aligns your electoral vote with a geographic area. Also I don’t see how conservative state legislatures change this proposal and would love to be enlightened.

See, THIS is where they get these silly ideas…

Far better, PP, would be enacting the National Popular Vote law in enough states for it to work. That also would not require a constitutional amendment, and would solve the swing-state problem in the most rational manner: the person with the most votes wins. Are you in?

The the claim of tossing out of Republican ballots is only found in a handful of comments on right wing blogs without any further information on when or where this occurred.

There is Washington Post story of an investigation into Republican operatives discarding Democrat voter registrations: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/virginia-voter-fraud-case-expands-to-focus-on-gop-firm/2012/11/02/76285252-24eb-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html

An Oregon poll worker who filled in a straight Republican ticket on the ballots where preferences had been left blank by voters: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/deanna-swenson-oregon-election-worker_n_2082882.html

A Republican woman arrested for attempting to vote twice in Nevada: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/02/southern-nevada-woman-arrested-suspicion-trying-vo/

The un-counted military ballots was my personal favorite. It stems from a story posted on a faux news website, the Duffel Blog which is similar to the Onion: http://www.examiner.com/article/thousands-demand-recount-after-fake-news-said-military-ballots-weren-t-counted

While some of the claims appear legitimate they don’t appear to be symptoms of widespread voter fraud. It is reassuring that most voters from both parties take democracy seriously.

It would go along way towards eliminating the bi-partisan hegemony of a handful of toss-up states and turn the Presidency back into a 50 state race again by eliminatiung winner-take-all, but would not require states to ignore the votes of their own citizens in favor of a President (Cheney) elected somewhere else. It also doesn’t require a consitutional amendment to go into effect for 2016.

We’ve had entirely too much tolerance of this garbage — a ENORMOUS portion of the dysfunction that surrounds us is the direct result.

But how does anyone get pleasure from believing in phony voter fraud, Obama birth certificate, or any of that malarkey?

Many of us entertain, and are even enriched by, myth, but what’s the underlying psychology that gains gratification from that sort of fantasy? And believes it to be literally true?

And I disagree that Sue Kennedy has any obligation to engage with a dining room table, though if she chooses to do so I wish her luck.

If she’s serious in her petition to you, she has a responsibility to back up her examples. I’d ask her to do so.

Senator Eldridge’s bill to require the Electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote is the best solution to many of the problems. First, presidential candidates would need to address issues in all states, not just the swing states of Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida…

On election night I was half hoping that Obama would lose the popular vote but win the electoral, so the elitist GOP might be bestirred to join with the rest of us small-d democrats and finally do something about the ridiculous Electoral College. It’s an archaic, stupid institution, and should be eliminated, IMO.