Content deleted Content added
Rescuing 5 sources and tagging 3 as dead. #IABot (v1.6.2) | |||
Line 65: * Current Electoral College rules allow a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote, as happened in the elections of [[United States presidential election, 1824|1824]], [[United States presidential election, 1876|1876]], [[United States presidential election, 1888|1888]], [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000]], and [[United States presidential election, 2016|2016]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#ecpopulardiffer|title=U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions|website=www.archives.gov|access-date=2017-12-20}}</ref> Specifically, in the 2000 election, [[Al Gore]] won 543,895 more votes nationally than [[George W. Bush]], but Bush secured 5 more electors than Gore, in part due to a narrow Bush victory in Florida; in the 2016 election, [[Hillary Clinton]] won 2,868,691 more votes nationally than [[Donald Trump]], but Trump secured 77 more electors than Clinton, in part due to narrow Trump victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. * Current Electoral College rules encourage candidates to focus disproportionately on a limited set of [[swing states]] (and in the case of Maine and Nebraska, swing districts), as small changes in the popular vote in those areas produce large changes in the electoral college vote. For example, in the 2016 election, a shift of 2,736 votes (or less than 0.4% of all votes cast) toward Donald Trump in New Hampshire would have produced a 4 electoral vote gain for his campaign. A similar shift in any other state would have produced no change in the electoral vote, thus encouraging the campaign to focus on New Hampshire above other states. A study by [[FairVote]] reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while the other 45 states received very little attention. The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV [[campaign advertising|advertising]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fairvote.org/presidential/?page=1677 |title=Who Picks the President? |publisher=FairVote |accessdate=June 11, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=February 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> This means that swing state issues receive more attention, while issues important to other states are largely ignored.<ref name=NYEd>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/opinion/14tue1.html |title=Drop Out of the College |work=The New York Times |date=March 14, 2006 |accessdate=June 11, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5628615 |title=Electoral College is outdated |work=Denver Post |date=April 9, 2007 |accessdate=June 11, 2008}}</ref><ref name=HillKee>{{cite journal |url=http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/700 |title=The Electoral College, Mobilization, and Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election |author=Hill, David |author2=McKee, Seth C. |journal=American Politics Research |year=2005 |pages=33:700–725 |accessdate=June 11, 2008}}</ref> * Current Electoral College rules tend to decrease [[voter turnout]] in states without close races. Voters living outside the swing states have a greater certainty of which candidate is likely to win their state. This knowledge of the probable outcome decreases their incentive to vote.<ref name=NYEd/><ref name=HillKee/> A report by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate found that [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004]] voter turnout in competitive swing states grew by 6.3% from the [[United States presidential election, 2000|previous presidential election]], compared to an increase of only 3.8% in noncompetitive states.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.american.edu/ia/cdem/csae/pdfs/csae041104.pdf |title=Committee for the Study of the American Electorate |date=November 4, 2004 |accessdate=June 12, 2008|format=PDF}}</ref> A report by The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that turnout among eligible voters under age 30 was 64.4% in the 10 closest battleground states and only 47.6% in the rest of the country—a 17% gap.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Youth_Voting_72-04.pdf |title=The Youth Vote 2004 |author=Lopez, Mark Hugo |author2=Kirby, Emily |author3=Sagoff, Jared |date=July 2005 |accessdate=June 12, 2008|format=PDF}}</ref> ==Debate== The project has been supported by editorials in newspapers, including ''[[The New York Times]]'',<ref name=NYEd/> the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'', the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'',<ref>{{cite news |url=https://caclean.org/problem/latimes_2006-06-05.php |title=States Join Forces Against Electoral College |work=Los Angeles Times |date=June 5, 2006 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref> ''[[The Boston Globe]]'',<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/02/18/a_fix_for_the_electoral_college/ |title=A fix for the Electoral College |work=The Boston Globe |date=February 18, 2008 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref> and the Minneapolis ''[[Star Tribune]]'',<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/editorials/minneapolisstartribune.php |title=How to drop out of the Electoral College: There's a way to ensure top vote-getter becomes president |location=Minneapolis |work=Star Tribune |date=March 27, 2006 |accessdate=July 13, 2008 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080723153155/http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/editorials/minneapolisstartribune.php |archivedate=July 23, 2008 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> arguing that the existing system discourages voter turnout and leaves emphasis on only a few states and a few issues, while a popular election would equalize voting power. Others have argued against it, including the ''[[Honolulu Star-Bulletin]]''.<ref name=Hono/> An article by [[Pierre S. du Pont, IV]], a former [[governor of Delaware]], in the opinion section of ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]''<ref name=Pont>{{cite news|first=Pete |last=du Pont |title=Trash the 'Compact' |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008855 |work=Wall Street Journal |date=August 29, 2006 |accessdate=February 1, 2012 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20091001064458/http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008855 |archivedate=October 1, 2009 }}</ref> has called the project an urban power grab that would shift politics entirely to urban issues in high population states and allow lower caliber candidates to run. A collection of readings pro and con has been assembled by the League of Women Voters.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12542 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110718153909/http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=%2FCM%2FContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12542 |archivedate=July 18, 2011 |title=National Popular Vote Compact Suggested Resource List |deadurl=yes |df= }}</ref> Some of the major points of debate are detailed below: Line 97: |} Under the current system, campaign focus – in terms of spending, visits, and attention paid to regional or state issues – is largely limited to the few swing states whose electoral outcomes are competitive, with politically "solid" states mostly ignored by the campaigns. The adjacent maps illustrate the amount spent on advertising and the number of visits to each state, relative to population, by the two major-party candidates in the last stretch of the [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004 presidential campaign]]. Supporters of the compact contend that a national popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign with equal effort for votes in competitive and non-competitive states alike.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fairvote.org/what-is-the-national-popular-vote-plan|title=National Popular Vote|work=FairVote}}</ref> Critics of the compact argue that candidates would have less incentive to focus on states with smaller populations or fewer urban areas, and would thus be unmotivated to address rural issues.<ref name=Pont/><ref name=NPVmemo>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/7-Page-NPV-Memo-V33-2007-6-1.pdf |title=National Popular Vote |date=June 1, 2007 |accessdate=July 13, 2008 |publisher=National Popular Vote |format=PDF |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071202144032/http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/7-Page-NPV-Memo-V33-2007-6-1.pdf |archivedate=December 2, 2007 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> ===Close elections and election fraud=== Line 117: Supporters believe the compact is legal under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the plenary power of the states to appoint their electors in any manner they see fit: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress". Proponents of this position include law professor [[Jamie Raskin]] (now U.S. Congressman for [[Maryland's 8th congressional district]]), who, as a state legislator, co-sponsored the first NPVIC bill to be signed into law, and law professors [[Akhil Reed Amar]] and [[Vikram Amar]], who were the compact's original proponents.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legalaffairs.org/poll/ |title=Who Are the Top 20 Legal Thinkers in America? |accessdate=July 4, 2008 |work=Legal Affairs }}</ref> A 2008 assessment by law school student David Gringer suggested that the NPVIC could potentially violate the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], but the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] in 2012 precleared California's entry into the compact under Section 5 of the Act, concluding that the compact had no adverse impact on California's racial minority voters.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Why the National Popular Vote Plan Is the Wrong Way to Abolish the Electoral College |url=http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/108/1/Gringer.pdf |first=David |last=Gringer |journal=Columbia Law Review |accessdate=July 13, 2008 |year=2008 |volume=108 |issue=1 |format=PDF |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090325073751/http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/108/1/Gringer.pdf |archivedate=March 25, 2009 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fairvote.org/assets/NewFolder/Chapter-188-approval-letter-from-DOJ.pdf Gringer also assailed the NPVIC as "an [[end run|end-run]] around the constitutional amendment process". Raskin has responded: "the term 'end run' has no known constitutional or legal meaning. More to the point, to the extent that we follow its meaning in real usage, the 'end run' is a perfectly lawful play."<ref>{{cite journal |title=Neither the Red States nor the Blue States but the United States: The National Popular Vote and American Political Democracy |url=http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/elj.2008.7304 |first=Jamie|last=Raskin |journal=[[Election Law Journal]] |publisher=Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. |accessdate=December 6, 2009 |year=2008 |volume=7 |issue=3 |format=PDF |doi=10.1089/elj.2008.7304 |page=188}}</ref> Raskin argues that the adoption of the term "end run" by the compact's opponents is a tacit acknowledgment of the plan's legality. Line 189: |title=Arkansas |year=2009 |accessdate=June 6, 2008}}</ref> [[California]],<ref name="CA08">{{cite web |url = http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_37&sess=0708&house=B&site=sen |publisher = California Legislature |title = Complete Bill History (SB 37) |year = 2007 |accessdate = December 23, 2010 }}{{dead link|date=February 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> [[Colorado]],<ref name="CO07">{{cite web |url=http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2007a/csl.nsf/billsummary/2B2373A5793D58768725725700645078?opendocument |title=Summarized History for Bill Number SB07-046 |publisher=Colorado Legislature |year=2007 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref> [[Illinois]],<ref name="Illinois">{{cite web Line 864 ⟶ 866: |- | 2011–12 | S 31<ref name="Vermont11">{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/bills/VT-S31-Bill-2011-Miller-Jan-2011.pdf |publisher=Vermont Legislature |title=Text of S31 |year=2011 |accessdate=February 28, 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110714155424/http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/bills/VT-S31-Bill-2011-Miller-Jan-2011.pdf |archivedate=July 14, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> | {{yes|Passed}}<ref name="Vermont11status">{{cite web |url=http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=S%2E0031&Session=2012 |publisher=Vermont Legislature |title=S31 |year=2011 |accessdate=February 28, 2011}}</ref> Line 914 ⟶ 915: * [http://www.fairvote.org/national-popular-vote FairVote] * [https://web.archive.org/web/20080609160506/http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1695007 Common Cause] * [https://web.archive.org/web/20110205033612/http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=20944 Electoral College legislation at the National Conference of State Legislatures] {{Good article}} | |||
🔥 Top keywords: Main PageSpecial:SearchPage 3Wikipedia:Featured picturesHouse of the DragonUEFA Euro 2024Bryson DeChambeauJuneteenthInside Out 2Eid al-AdhaCleopatraDeaths in 2024Merrily We Roll Along (musical)Jonathan GroffJude Bellingham.xxx77th Tony AwardsBridgertonGary PlauchéKylian MbappéDaniel RadcliffeUEFA European Championship2024 ICC Men's T20 World CupUnit 731The Boys (TV series)Rory McIlroyN'Golo KantéUEFA Euro 2020YouTubeRomelu LukakuOpinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general electionThe Boys season 4Romania national football teamNicola CoughlanStereophonic (play)Gene WilderErin DarkeAntoine GriezmannProject 2025