Skip to main content

Here's a cool map from artist and urban planner Neil Freeman, who engaged in a thought experiment to rectify a serious problem with the electoral college: namely, that California has 66 times the population of Wyoming but only 18 times the electoral votes. Of course, this size disparity is an even bigger problem in the Senate, though Freeman's radical plan would remedy both—by redrawing the 50 states to make them all equipopulous:

Map of the United States redrawn as 50 states with equal population
(click for larger)
You'll definitely want to click through to Freeman's site to see his impressive full-size map (and there's an even more detailed version that you can buy in poster form). Freeman also explains how he came up with these states:
The map began with an algorithm that grouped counties based on proximity, urban area, and commuting patterns. The algorithm was seeded with the fifty largest cities. After that, manual changes took into account compact shapes, equal populations, metro areas divided by state lines, and drainage basins. In certain areas, divisions are based on census tract lines.
As an added bonus, House districts (which also currently vary widely in size) would have equal populations, too.

Of course, a map this extreme would never come anywhere close to implementation; as Freeman himself says, this is an art project, not a serious proposal. But it's some very useful food for thought, in that it highlights just how unfair our existing state lines are. Indeed, the fact that few of Freeman's creatively named states even resemble any of today's shows just how out-of-whack our systems of governance are when it comes to respecting the true ideal of "one person, one vote."

But we aren't without hope: One genuine (if partial) remedy is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would replace the electoral college with a true national vote, without the need for a constitutional amendment.

For now, though, we can have a little fun, so tell us which new state you live in. I'm still in the only one that doesn't get a name change: New York. How about you?

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 03:59 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I guess that puts me in "Casco" since I live (9+ / 0-)

    in coastal Maine. I very much doubt, however, if one could get Mainers, people in Eastern New Hampshire and the North Shore of Boston to agree on anything. Hell, Maine and New Hampshire fought over a shipyard in the Piscataqua River for decades. (Maine won: the Portsmouth Shipyard is no longer in New Hampshire, it's actually in Maine.)

    Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

    by commonmass on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:05:25 PM PST

  •  I live in the new Washington.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, kyril

    which would be the old MD, at least I think that's it.. Cool map!

  •  I think I am in Adirondak (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, kyril, SottoVoce

    That would be okay with me, but may lean R.

    Americans, while occasionally willing to be serfs, have always been obstinate about being peasantry. F. Scott Fitzgerald, the Great Gatsby

    by riverlover on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:08:14 PM PST

    •  I and also in Adirondack. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      riverlover

      Just barely.

      "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

      by SottoVoce on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 06:48:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Now in progressive Vermont, shoehorned into (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wreck Smurfy, mmacdDE

        conservative Adirondack. VT would secede and join Canada. Adieu, mes amis!

        Bigger problem: Forcing my native Hawaiian Islands--already a sovreign kingdom stolen by the US from its people--into some sort of awkward arranged Statehood marriage with a piece of the mainland 2500 miles away. It's as territorially logical as making one chunk of California join with the Florida Keys, and culturally 100x LESS appropriate.

        Not. Gonna. Happen.

        Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

        by earicicle on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 07:27:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Vermont would be welcome to join Canada (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          earicicle

          at any time by this Canadian. Bienvenue, mes amis!

          Actually, I'd be very interested to see a similar map of Canada. Not for the same reasons; our Senate is useless and should be abolished, and our House of Commons electoral districts are (mostly) based on equal numbers of electors, like your House of Representatives. But we have an even greater range of population from smallest to biggest province (PEI: 130,000; ONT: over 10 million). It would be eye-opening to see as a map.

          -8.38, -7.74 My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. - Jack Layton

          by Wreck Smurfy on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 07:39:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  and we can't call it Shasta (0+ / 0-)

          maybe Pacifica.

          ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

          by James Allen on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 11:17:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  No don't put me in Sheandoah! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, Navy Vet Terp, kyril

    Gerrymander me into a slightly more progressive state!

    The highest form of spiritual practice is self observation with compassion.

    by NCJim on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:10:03 PM PST

    •  also in Shenandoah (0+ / 0-)

      I know this whole area well and am struck by the cities not on the map, such as Roanoke.  Also how main roads are at east and west edge of the area. Difficult to connect them easily.

      Is there a common culture?  What would unite us?  things to ponder.

      I was struck by how poor a tax base this area would have.  As well as many others.  Removing large cities to be their own place also removes large tax base.

      "Eating your seed corn is not a good business model." - FishOutofWater

      by saluda on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 07:05:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  State of Adirondack (6+ / 0-)

    Which is a nice thought, but I'm afraid Vermont's unique rural character would get drowned out by those ruffians from Albany and Syracuse. ;-)

    Also...Lubbock in the Big Thicket?  Not quite.

  •  Why would Rhode Island, w/ 3 electoral.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, raines

    ..votes, overrepresented as it is, voluntarily ratify the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?

    In fact, any small state (by population) would be doing its constituents a disservice in rejecting the status quo.

    If I were a lawmaker in a small state, my play would be as follows.

    Want to modify the electoral system?

    Fine, but the Capitol and White House are relocated to a small city in a Western state, with the stipulation that all federal lawmakers and executive branch members must spend at least 70% of their time in said city.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

    by PatriciaVa on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:11:25 PM PST

    •  Not every small state benefits from (6+ / 0-)

      the incentive structure of the electoral college. When's the last time a presidential candidate visited Rhode Island?

      Hope you fall on your burger and fries.

      by cardinal on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:33:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except to raise money. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PatriciaVa, kyril
      •  For EC, it's 'swinginess' that matters most (9+ / 0-)

        States that are 'reliably' Blue or Red really don't figure into either party's Presidential campaign as far as winning EVs. Of course, that will change if any state changes from winner-take-all to any kind of proportional allocation. For example, New Hampshire has only 4 EVs, but because it is (or at least used to be) a swing state, it gets a lot of attention from both campaigns.

        In theory, the disproportionate representation of the Senate is the worst feature of American democracy. It's only because federal politics are organized on the two party system rather than on geographical divisions that this unequalness is mitigated. For example, in current Presidential politics the small Blue and Red states tend to cancel each other out. And while rural interests have disproportionate power, I don't think they necessarily dominate American politics. Evidence for this is the fact that the urban-oriented Democratic Party has been more than competitive in holding the Senate against the rural-oriented GOP.

        If anything, with the impending death of the filibuster and other anitmajoritarian features in Senate procedure, the Senate will become 'more' representative. Since amending the Constitution is a practical impossibility, I would focus more efforts on getting rid of partisan gerrymandering in the House - that will help the progressive cause much more in the short and long term.

        •  Getting rid of gerrymandering requires incumbents (0+ / 0-)

          to insist on making their reelections harder.
          Good luck trying to accomplish that, regardless of the party in office.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 05:48:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OR It Requires (0+ / 0-)

            the citizens of the State to put forth a ballot initiative, such as what was done in California.

            I'm thoroughly disgusted with the gerrymandering job done in my home of PA - though I am not unhappy with my personal result.

            Although 52% of PA voted Democrat candidates in House races, we sent 13 R's and only 5 D's to the 113th Congress.  Although, I got moved from R-Lou Barletta's 11th District to D-Matt Cartwright's 17th District, so I'm not disappointed to be myself represented by a Democrat - one of only five from PA.

    •  Maybe because they think it's the right thing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, raines

      to do?

      Not everyone votes for things based on gross self interest.

      If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

      by AoT on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:49:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen

      they thought they were entitled to 4 and were upset that one had been taken away from them.  Though it probably will be taken away from them in 2020 or 2030.

    •  74% of RI Voters support a National Popular Vote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Theodore J Pickle

      A survey of Rhode Island voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

      Support was 78% among independents, 86% among liberal Democrats, 85% among moderate Democrats, 60% among conservative Democrats, 71% among liberal Republicans, 63% among moderate Republicans, and 35% among conservative Republicans.

      By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 80% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.

      By gender, support was 84% among women and 63% among men.

      The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

      Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

      In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.     

      Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

      Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group.  Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%,  NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%,  SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%,  and WY- 69%.

      Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

      NationalPopularVote

  •  King? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, kyril, DuzT

    Many of the names have a regional association or meaning.  Does "King" by any chance refer to cotton??

    "There is no way to give to honest toil its just reward--its full share of all wealth produced--but by the full application of the single tax. And righteousness and justice require it to be done." --A. Moll, 1897

    by Zwenkau on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:11:40 PM PST

  •  wonderful idea (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, kyril, DuzT, Wreck Smurfy

    would eliminate the batshit crazy elected officials who get in from the boonies where bears outnumber humans and Duck Dynasty is mandatory viewing...

  •  He put Hawaii with the mainland ? (8+ / 0-)

    That's just so wrong .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:15:31 PM PST

  •  Muscogee, not Muskogee (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, eztempo, Agasgani, Bisbonian, twigg

    As in Muscogee Creek.

    I mean, just sayin' ...

    •  I noticed that too (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indubitably, DuzT, bill warnick, saluda

      And in his etymology section he stated that the name came from a song. Apparently he's not familiar with the various nations in these parts.

      Of course, he could have named the state Sequoyah, but they already did that once and Congress denied us statehood:

      In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks - John Muir

      by Agasgani on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 06:07:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well maybe ... (0+ / 0-)

      The Muscogee Creek Nation is based and headquartered in Okmulgee, the hometown of my wife and about sixty miles from here.

      The City of Muskogee is not so far away, and was the seat of the Five Civilized Tribes, currently housing the museum.

      Sequoyah was a member of the Cherekee Nation, based now in Tahlequah ... another city close to both Okmulgee and Muskogee.

      The derivation of the spelling differences is not easy to fathom, but Mvskoke is their name in traditional spelling

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 07:34:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You do realize (0+ / 0-)

        Tulsa is in Muscogee Creek Nation.

        We're not talking isolated cities here. We're talking territorial boundaries of sovereign nations.

        •  Most of the Native Americans (0+ / 0-)

          around Tulsa are Cherokee.

          It's quite difficult, these days, to identify actual "territorial boundaries, because although reservations still exist, much of their land is in smaller parcels located in completely mixed cities.

          For example ... The Creek Nation Council House is on Indian land, right in the middle of the US city of Okmulgee.

          Equally, the Indian Smoke Shops are spread around the state on pieces of land owned by the Nations, but within cities like Tulsa. As are the casinos.

          Some of that land is sovereign, but not all of it.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 09:26:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Proud Shastian! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, kyril, demreplib33, 6412093

    Though I dare say my new state will look a bit redder. But we would spread the gospel of "No Sales Tax" to several outlying areas. :)

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:20:15 PM PST

    •  Wouldn't the demonym (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Pale Jenova

      be "Shastan"?

      In any event, that'd be an interesting mix of blue Hawaii, purple-blue Oregon, and some red (but low-population) sections of Washington and California. I think we'd be a swing state.

      •  Actually, I might be a Mendoceno (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, Pale Jenova

        Taking a closer look at the map, I'm not sure if I'm in Shasta or Mendocino.

        If I'm analyzing the latter, I think Mendocino would probably reliably blue. It's got a lot of rural valley area, but if the population is ~6.1M, then most of the people are going to be in Sacramento (2.4M in the MSA) and the Bay Area.

      •  that part of Washington isn't too red (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pale Jenova

        unless it has Lewis County I think Obama won all those counties in 2008. 2012 not so much, but its not that red.
        And Oregon lost some of its most conservative counties, too.

        Regardless, I think we should drop the name Shasta.

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 11:23:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

          And Shasta loses Malheur County (true bad luck for Dems) and does gain Hawaii.

          But Lewis County is a right-wing swamp.

          And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

          by Pale Jenova on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 10:17:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting project -- map the new Senate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mokurai, kyril, Pale Jenova

      Assuming you're in OR now, yep, adding SW Washington and far-northern CA would do that.  Probably enough to make the state close to 50/50 purple again.

      Which brings up an interesting next step for this map -- assuming voting patterns stay the same at the precinct level, what do the Senate and Electoral College look like for this new arrangement?

      •  Well, I don't feel like mathing, but I can guess: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eagleray, DuzT, Pale Jenova

        Blue:
        1. Rainier
        2. Mendocino
        3. Yerba Buena
        4. Los Angeles
        5. Houston
        6. Chicago
        7. Detroit
        8. Scioto
        9. Atlanta
        10. Miami
        11. Washington
        12. Tidewater
        13. Willimantic
        14. Throgs Neck
        15. New York
        16. Newark
        17. Philadelphia
        18. Casco

        Red:
        1. Orange
        2. Tule
        3. Salt Lake
        4. Ogallala
        5. Mesabi
        6. Nodaway
        7. Muskogee
        8. Phoenix
        9. Gary
        10. Sangamon
        11. Maumi
        12. Ozark
        13. Mammoth
        14. Atchafalaya
        15. King
        16. Canaveral
        17. Blue Ridge
        18. Shendoah
        19. Columbia

        Purple:
        1. Shasta
        2. Temecula
        3. Trinity
        5. Big Thicket
        6. Menominee
        7. Firelands
        8. Tampa Bay
        9. Allegheny
        10. Pocono
        11. Adirondack
        12. Susquehanna
        13. Casco

        "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

        by kyril on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 06:40:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Move/Absence (10+ / 0-)

    This is as good a time as any to let everyone know the reason I've been mostly silent the last 2 months is that I've accepted a new position and have left New Orleans here in San Francisco.

    I'm, heartbroken to have left my beloved New Orleans, but I was offered a job I couldn't refuse. I hope to get better acclimated with SF/CA politics but will still be commentating on La happenings. I'm looking at hosting a fundraiser for our soon to be chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources out here in the spring/summer, but that's TBD. In the meantime, y'all holler if you make it out this way.

    I guess to answer the question, I've now moved from Atchafalaya to Yerba Buena.

    23, Male, LA-02, TX-08 (originally), SSP: sschmi4

    by Stephen Schmitz on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:21:25 PM PST

  •  This map came out a while back and it's quite the (6+ / 0-)

    interesting idea. But I can't say I don't have some major disagreements with how Freeman drew the lines with the worst offender being how he sliced up Appalachia in what may as well be a GOP gerrymander. Knoxville has no business being with Savannah, nor Charlotte and Lexington, nor the Triad and West Virginia, or really Chattanooga with the gulf coast. The state of Shipprock is also kind of bad with two states combining the Rockies with the plains rather than one (or none). On the other hand I do like how he's done a good portion of the Midwest, particularly Mesabi (Minnesota).

    Eventually if I ever run out of projects to do I might do something like this. I know a few other DKErs did some diaries on at least part of the country using this idea. But there's a lot of stuff I find more appealing since if we're going to accept the idea that state boundaries should change, why in the hell would we want them to be equal population and combine some really incompatible communities of interest? I'd much rather have states that function well but aren't the basis of federal representation. Otherwise you end up with something like California, or Freeman's Shipprock.

    Anyway, I do believe that Romney wins the electoral college under this plan, but I can't say whether that's unavoidable or just because of the way Freeman divided heavily GOP parts of the country like Appalachia. I'm guessing it's his lines.

    •  There's a Lexington in NC (5+ / 0-)

      as well as the one in KY, so that would get pretty complicated.  Although at least Bristol, TN and Bristol, VA would finally be one city!

      One issue with the great state of "Blue Ridge" is... the Blue Ridge mountains themselves.  There's a reason Tennessee and North Carolina got divided along them!  That's where the tallest mountain east of the Mississippi is (Mount Mitchell), and even with modern travel options, it's still difficult to get from one to the other very quickly.  

      Natural geographic barriers should be considered, as well as populations.  Besides, populations can shift.  Charlotte, where I live, has grown a LOT in the past 50 years.  When I was little, we lived out in the county.  That whole area has become completely urban, down to the state line.

      •  hell, the city I just moved from (0+ / 0-)

        was 750 people in 1970 and now is over 26,000. A suburb.

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 11:32:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Problem (0+ / 0-)

      The problem with any sort of plan like this is that it ends up with a severe Republican gerrymander. Unless you start breaking cities up between states, you have very geographically tiny very Democratic city-states surrounded by large moderately-Republican thinly-populated states.

      NH4JL DIT '04, NHDP DIT '08!

      by realnrh on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 11:36:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Salt Lake (0+ / 0-)

    has too many Mormon connotations for me.  I think I'll move from Idaho (I've already got about all the Mormonism I can take.) to Oregon (Shasta).  I would however just like to stay living in the largest (geographically speaking) county in little old Idaho.

  •  I am from Gary, we have three airports. (5+ / 0-)

    We are still the birthplace of the Jackson Five!
    Or is it the Jackson Seven now that the girls can sing, too?

    And we are so much less corrupt than Illinois was!
    In fact, with the name change, and the new letterheads and envelopes, we have pretty much a new reputation. If we can go two, maybe three, governors without a prison sentence, I think we'll get that respect we always walked about.

    skipping over damaged area

    by Says Who on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:27:01 PM PST

  •  its hard to imagine (4+ / 0-)

    changing our voting system to make it fairer and more democratic when we have many who want less participation not more, of course remove the gop from the equation and its a done deal and a win win for everyone concerned.

    •  NPV is more than halfway to going into effect (0+ / 0-)

      In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

      Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

      Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

      The National Popular Vote bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

      NationalPopularVote       
      Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  •  states (6+ / 0-)

    States are no longer needed.  States were formed to a size that people could travel from end to end in 2 days--which is why many states put their capitals in their center.  Today, we can go coast to coast in 6 hours--and send emails in nanoseconds.  The present form of government not only allows for unequal representation--it allows states to whore themselves with corporate welfare to entice corporate movement of jobs--witness the enticements offered to Boeing to move production facilities while destroying its unions.  We truly need a constitutional convention--but not with today's insane so powerful.

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:30:53 PM PST

  •  I'm in the capital (4+ / 0-)

    of Orange.  Not sure how I feel about that.

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:31:14 PM PST

  •  I'm in Muskogee (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    sounds okay to me.

    "Portion of the adolescent prisoners in solitary on Rikers Island who have been diagnosed with a mental illness: 7/10." Tell someone.

    by RJDixon74135 on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:32:22 PM PST

  •  I dunno... putting E. Lansing (6+ / 0-)

    and Ann Arbor in the same state that once held allegiance to Columbus?   I see another Toledo war on the horizon.

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:32:33 PM PST

  •  popular vote (4+ / 0-)

    As I have written before it is the senate inclusion in the electoral college that is the problem. Without it the ration between Wyoming and California, the least and most populous state, would be 55:66 instead of 18:66.  The choice, obviously, was PR fodder rather than meaning discussion.

    It is this senate thing that gives the conservative 10% so much power.  Small states are largely conservative, and get huge influence.  Popular vote may be a solution, but it is not going to be a solution that small conservative states are going to accept.  Neither is anything so complex as this.

    Really, we need to detach the electoral college from the house and senate.  Make each electoral vote 100,000 persons.  Give every state two extra as a compromise.  Wyoming will now have 8 electoral votes, California will have 382, a 47:66 ratio, much more reasonable.  Not what we would want, but certainly a reasonable compromise

    •  NPV is 50.4% of the way to go into effect (0+ / 0-)

      With the National Popular Vote bill, there is no need for a constitutional amendment to detach the Electoral College from the house and senate, or make any other changes.

      The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), by state laws.

      Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

      When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough Electoral College votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the Electoral College votes from the enacting states simply would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

      The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

      The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

      In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
      Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
      Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

      The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 rural, small, medium, and large states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

      NationalPopularVote       
      Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  •  I'm in Mendocino, and contemplating a move to... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    Shasta.

    Definitely some food for thought.

  •  Not sure if I want to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    be connected to the Libertarians of N. California, as I would be in Shasta, although being in same state as Hawaii would be nice.
    Think I'll stay in Oregon, though.

    Severely Socialist 47283

    by ichibon on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:35:49 PM PST

  •  I'm amused by part of Texas being renamed as (9+ / 0-)

    "Big Thicket". I guess that's better than "Thick Bigot".

    I'm never sure if I've forgotten and left the lid up, or if InvisObama™ is using the loo.

    by The Gryffin on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:37:10 PM PST

  •  Trinity. It looks to be about (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chemborg, kyril

    90% urban, so I'll take it.

    Hope you fall on your burger and fries.

    by cardinal on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:37:19 PM PST

  •  Blue Ridge (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, raines

    do I keep my zip code ?

    ;)

  •  Nodaway (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    copymark, kyril

    which is a pretty rural county in NW MO, not sure why you'd pick that as a state name! But since I'm on the line between them & Muskogee, I'll take Nodaway...

  •  I live in Southwest Ogallala (5+ / 0-)

    not far from the border of Salt Lake (which I'm assuming from the squiggles on the map runs down the Continental Divide). Not sure how I feel, however, about them Salt-Lickers and Shiprockians getting most of the prettiest parts of the old Colorado, while the Front Range gets lumped in with a bunch of frozen wheat fields, Republican voters, and old missile silos.

  •  Maumee! [What is it, dear?] I want a Salerno(tm) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    butter COOK-ie!

  •  Can't quite tell if I am in Phoenix or Temecula. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril
  •  Why not just make the senate more representative.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    copymark, kyril, James Allen

    ......of population numbers?

    Some states get five, three or four senators, some get one or two, and some get none (hello, Wyoming).

    Be easier to reapportion the senate than change the names and borders of all the states.

    •  Because that is not the intention of the founders (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, raines, FrankRose

      The House changes numbers and is based upon population, representing the "people".  

      The Senate represents each state's interests on a national level.

      Why change it?  It's a damn good system IMO.

      The electoral map is a different issue - I agree, just go to national popular vote.

      "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

      by mumtaznepal on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 05:03:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  its not democratic (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IdahoSocialist

        and the state as a separate entity no longer mattered after popular election of senators began.

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 11:36:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Get rid of the great compromise (0+ / 0-)

          and the United States would no longer be United.

          Democracy isn't mob rule, significant numbers of people who live in more rural areas deserve a voice.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 06:00:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why should they get a larger "voice" than others? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gabjoh

            ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

            by James Allen on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 09:03:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are you seriously trying to argue that urban areas (0+ / 0-)

              aren't represented in US politics?

              Listening to urbanites complain about 'underrepresentation' because of the US Senate is like listening to whites complain about 'reverse racism' because of affirmative action.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 09:39:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  so you believe rural people should (0+ / 0-)

                be more important than others? Or that they are more important? That they get to have more rights than the rest of us?

                I grew up in a rural area, and still would live there if I could, but I actually believe in democracy and equality.

                And anyway, Rhode Island is quite urban and there are plenty of rural people in Texas and California who are underrepresented in the senate; this isn't about rural v. urban, its about states with smaller populations having disproportionate power in the senate being undemocratic.

                ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                by James Allen on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 11:56:28 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your first sentence could just as easily be said (0+ / 0-)

                  by someone who is against affirmative action: "so you believe [some people] should be more important than others?"

                  It is absurdity to try and argue that populous states don't have enough political clout.

                  Without the Senate the concerns of virtually everyone that doesn't live on the coasts would be completely ignored.
                  Democracy isn't tyranny of the majority, the citizens of less populous states deserve a voice.

                  Without the great compromise there would be no unity in the United States.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 12:08:55 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Democracy is rule by the majority (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Meteor Blades

                    the great compromise was necessary to get the constitution ratified. That is all. It was not a great visionary act that created a newer and greater meaning for American democracy. It was just a compromise between people selfishly looking out for their own state's interests in a time when people identified as Virginians and New Yorkers before identifying as Americans because the US didn't exist yet. Most of us are no longer like that. We don't identify first as being of our state before our country. We don't vote based on our state's narrow interests. We vote on our own personal ones and ideology. It would not make small states fall under the boot of the big states because the already don't vote together as blocs. In fact, it would get rid of the state as an entity altogether in congress, so states wouldn't be exerting power over each other, people would be.

                    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                    by James Allen on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 12:25:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes. 'Rule' of the majority. Not 'tyranny'. (0+ / 0-)

                      Vast swaths of the United States & the people living there  would be without any voice without the great compromise & the upper house.

                      One of the reasons why New Yorkers and Virginians (and Missourians and Minnesotans and Alaskans and.....) identify themselves as Americans is because of the bicameral legislature.
                      If entire regions, states and the people that live there are completely left with no say in their leadership, there would be no 'United' in the 'United States'.
                      Thanks to the great compromise people who live in less populous states still have a voice albeit not as large a voice as more populous states.
                      That is why people from as diverse of areas as Massachusetts, North Dakota, Texas, California, Utah & Alaska are all invested in being American.
                      Other Democracies around the world, sharing far more history & being far more homogeneous has to contend with devolution (Canada & GB), and in some cases can't even keep a democracy (Russia).

                      One of the things that is unique about the United States is our extraordinarily diverse population, spread over a huge geographic area & sharing little history is still 'United'.
                      The great compromise is a large (I would argue largest) reason for our unprecedented Unity, both in each other & in our underlying faith in our system.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 12:56:51 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  With NPV, the EC would still elect US President (0+ / 0-)

            None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
            The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

            Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%.

            In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states. Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.  Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.  

            The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.  In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

            The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. In 2008, 98% of the campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

            The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

            Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."   The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

            The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections.  It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.  The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

            Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

            The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
            National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

            NPV ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

            •  I was speaking of the bicameral legislature (0+ / 0-)

              and the Senate having equial representatives per state & the House having representation based on population.

              I'm not terribly concerned with EC vs NPV.
              The results between the two makes a difference less than once every century.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 09:57:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  80% of US is Ignored by Presidential Campaigns (0+ / 0-)

                Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.  This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections.  The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012).

                537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
                A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
                In 2012, a shift of 214,390 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

                80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

                The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

                Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

                Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
                “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.” [only 10 in 2012]

                In apportionment of federal grants by the executive branch, swing states received about 7.6% more federal grants and about 5.7% more federal grant money between 1992 and 2008 than would be expected based on patterns in other states.

                During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win.  They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected.  Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

                Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties.  President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana.  Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D.  Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west, and Pacific Rim trade issues.

                 “Maybe it is just a coincidence that most of the battleground states decided by razor-thin margins in 2008 have been blessed with a No Child Left Behind exemption. “ – Wall Street Journal , June 5, 2012

                As of June 7, 2012 “Six current heavily traveled Cabinet members, have made more than 85 trips this year to electoral battlegrounds such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a POLITICO review of public speeches and news clippings. Those swing-state visits represent roughly half of all travel for those six Cabinet officials this year.”

                •  Prior to 2000, the last time it happened was in (0+ / 0-)

                  1888, and if the votes had been counted in Florida instead of the recount being stopped by Bush v Gore, the election of 2000 would have gone for Gore using either popular vote or EC.

                  "80% of the US is ignored by Presidental campaigns"
                  That is more of a result of Presidental candidates not being omnipotent than because of the Electoral college: Time is finite & they can't be everywhere at once.

                  Again, I'm not necessarily against NPV, but I only have a finite amount of fucks to give & I'm not willing to waste political capital on something that only happens @ once a century. There are a lot of things that could make a difference tomorrow instead of something I will likely never see for the remander of my (or even my child's) lifetime.  

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 10:28:46 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Near misses are now frequently common (0+ / 0-)

                    There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012).

                    A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

                    The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

                    Even in the recent handful of states where a presidential vote matters to the candidates, the value of a vote is different.

                    Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.

                    During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win.  They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected.  Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

                    In 1960, presidential campaigns paid attention to 35 states.
                    In 2008, Obama only campaigned in 14 states after being nominated.
                    In 2012, the presidential campaigns only cared about 9 swing states.

                    The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

                    States' partisanship is hardening.

                    19 states (including California with 55 electoral votes) with a total of 242 electoral votes, have voted Democratic, 1992-2012
                    13 states with 102 electoral votes have voted Republican, 1992-2012

                    Some states have not been been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position. In a study before the 2012 election:
                    •  41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2008
                    •  32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2008
                    •  13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2008
                    •  19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2008
                    •  9 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
                    •  15 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

                    http://www.fairvote.org/...

                    With National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.  

                    The statewide itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their statewide allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

                    Consider that a national advertiser does not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because a competitor makes more sales in those particular states. Moreover, a national advertiser enjoying an edge over its competitors in Indiana or Illinois does not stop trying to make additional sales in those states. National advertisers go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located.

                    With National Popular Vote, candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.  

                    •  OK. I'm convinced. (0+ / 0-)

                      Still not giving a fuck as it likely won't make any difference for as long as I live.

                      I would rather spend political capital on an issue that doesn't take a century to be an issue of any significance.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 11:31:59 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  NPV is not a waste of political capital (0+ / 0-)

                    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

                    Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

                    Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

                    The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 rural, small, medium, and large states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

                    NationalPopularVote       
                    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

                    •  Well sure. All that needs to be done is change the (0+ / 0-)

                      Constitution.
                      Clearly the addition of a Constitutional Amendment doesn't take much political capital.

                      Fuck it, lets just do it over the weekend.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 11:49:28 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  NPV does NOT Change anything in Constitution (0+ / 0-)

                        By state laws, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing to amend the Constitution.

                        The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

                        The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

                        Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

                        When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

                        The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

                        The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

                        In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
                        Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

                        The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

                        NationalPopularVote       
                        Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

                  •  Strong R, D, and Independent Support for NPV (0+ / 0-)

                    By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

                    Alaska (3)- 78% among (Democrats), 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
                    Arkansas (6)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 79% (Independents).
                    Arizona  - 60% (R), 79% (D), and 57% others
                    California (55)– 76% (D), 61% (R), and 74% (I)
                    Colorado (9)- 79% (D), 56% (R), and 70% (I).
                    Connecticut (7)- 80% (D), 67% (R), and 71% others
                    Delaware (3)- 79% (D), 69% (R), and 76% (I)
                    District of Columbia (3)- 80% (D), 48% (R), and 74% of (I)
                    Florida (29)- 88% (D), 68% (R), and 76% others
                    Idaho(4) - 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
                    Iowa (6)- 82% (D), 63% (R), and 77% others
                    Kentucky (8)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 70% (I)
                    Maine (4) - 85% (D), 70% (R), and 73% others
                    Massachusetts (11)- 86% (D), 54% (R), and 68% others
                    Michigan (16)- 78% (D), 68% (R), and 73% (I)
                    Minnesota (10)- 84% (D), 69% (R), and 68% others
                    Mississippi (6)- 79% (D), 75% (R), and 75% Others
                    Montana – 67% (R), 80% (D), and 70% others
                    Nebraska (5)- 79% (D), 70% (R), and 75% Others
                    Nevada (5)- 80% (D), 66% (R), and 68% Others
                    New Hampshire (4)- 80% (D), 57% (R), and 69% (I)
                    New Mexico (5)- 84% (D), 64% (R), and 68% (I)
                    New York (29) - 86% (D), 66% (R), 78% Independence Party members, 50% Conservative Party members, 100% Working Families Party members, and 70% Others
                    North Carolina (15)- 75% liberal (D), 78% moderate (D), 76% conservative (D), 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), and 80% (I)
                    Ohio (18)- 81% (D), 65% (R), and 61% Others
                    Oklahoma (7)- 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
                    Oregon (7)- 82% (D), 70% (R), and 72% (I)
                    Pennsylvania (20)- 87% (D), 68% (R), and 76% (I)
                    Rhode Island (4)- 86% liberal (D), 85% moderate (D), 60% conservative (D), 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), and 78% (I),
                    South Carolina  -  64% (R), 81% (D), and 68% others
                    South Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
                    Tennessee  73% (R), 78% (D)
                    Utah (6)- 82% (D), 66% (R), and 75% others
                    Vermont (3)- 86% (D); 61% (R), and 74% Others
                    Virginia (13)- 79% liberal (D), 86% moderate (D), 79% conservative (D), 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), and 54% conservative (R), and 79% Others
                    Washington (12)- 88% (D), 65% (R), and 73% others
                    West Virginia (5)- 87% (D), 75% (R), and 73% others
                    Wisconsin (10)- 81% (D), 63% (R), and 67% (I)
                    Wyoming (3) – 77% (D), 66% (R), and 72% (I)   
                    http://nationalpopularvote.com/...

    •  You're thinking of reps in congress... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      not the senate. Every state gets 2 senators, whether the population is 2 or 30 million....

    •  Why not just make the senate more representative (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      I agree.  The disparity in population between the largest and smallest states is much greater now than in sthe 1790 census (I think that is the closest we get to having accurate information.).  

      Gradual change so that small states don't all lose their second Senator right away (I would say even the smallest states get one).  Gradual change so that the large states don't get all their new Senators right away, too (I would say some multiple of the average size of a state with a maximum of four or five Senators for a large state.)  

      My idea is probably no more practical than the map we are reacting to, but it does retain the existing structure of the states.

    •  Why not just abolish the senate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen

      seems like a perfectly good idea to me... so long as we get rid of gerrymandering in the House at the same time. Maybe we could eventually turn the senate into a body like the House of Lords later in the century, since abolition takes unanimity among the states.

    •  It is constitutionally forbidden. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      Two things are exempted from being tinkered with by Article V, "provided that...no state, without its consent, be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate."  The other exemption is halting the slave trade prior to 1808.  I've thought for a while that every state should get three Senators since there are more people over all and each state can elect one per biennium.  IMO the House should be 600 members.

  •  I live in Los Angeles (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    Which is where I live now, just as part of the state that has 66 times the population of Wyoming. It will make us like New York City, since some people will live in Los Angeles, Los Angeles. I won't be in that group, though.

  •  Bah (0+ / 0-)

    Not going to happen, ever.  Expensive and impracticable.  You'd have to change it ever 10 years--for everything.  Nice poltical porn, though, for a circle jerk.

    How about going with the 50-state strategy which Gov. Dean worked with and which can work?  

    Oh, wait, that would require work.

  •  I'm in the state of Shiprock (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    NM, AZ and parts of TX and maybe CO seem to be included.  Not sure how that block would vote.

  •  Allegheny + Adirondack (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    Currently dividing my time between Allegheny (Pittsburgh) and Adirondack (Rochester).

    Have previously lived in Maumee (or maybe Sangamon?  I can't quite tell where Urbana would be) and Shasta.

  •  I'd be in Washington (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    probably southern Washington, as compared currently to Northern Va.

    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein

    by pickandshovel on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 04:58:42 PM PST

  •  Happy holidays from Shenandoah. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    A whole lot of nothing, and the Research Triangle.

    Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations. - George Orwell

    by Wayward Son on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 05:00:50 PM PST

  •  heh ... San Diego as capital of Orange (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    I could write pages about how wrong that is.  A sleepy military town governing a bunch of rich people, with both the apple trees and snow of Julian and the hot dry desert of Borrego Springs to the east thrown in for good measure.

    Shows the difference between the two sides, though.  We offer a plan to give everyone in the country an equal say, while they try to draw borders to give themselves as much of a say as possible while giving us as little of a say as possible.

    IMO the problem with political borders is when they don't roughly equal social borders: race, religion, language, culture/lifestyle, economics, etc.  I notice that political dimensions didn't factor into the algorithm or the manual changes afterwards.  IMO that's a fatal flaw, not likely to solve the fundamentally tribal conflict raging at the heart of the country.

    If equal population is going to be the driving factor, I think that rather than making sure every state has a big city, you carve off the built-up areas into their own states and pack the rural hinterlands together.

    Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

    by Visceral on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 05:02:52 PM PST

  •  "Fireland" Being Northern Ohio (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, Freakinout daily

    which appeals to me A LOT MORE than a recent diary's proposal putting us into a State of Appalachia.

    Channeling Whoopi, I've been to Appalachia, and I'm a Firelander.

    I suppose our capital should be Motown.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 05:05:34 PM PST

  •  So, who would have won in 2008 and 2012? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    If you could overlay this map with the electoral maps, what would our government look like?

    You're right, the map is a fascinating source of endless speculation and daydreaming.

    "'Patriotism' is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson, 1775

    preborner: (n.) one who believes that the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth.

    by 1BQ on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 05:08:20 PM PST

    •  Nate Cohn looked at this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      1BQ, James Allen, raines

      And concluded that this map would have benefitted Romney.

      Get the Daily Kos Elections Digest in your inbox every weekday. Sign up here.

      by David Nir on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 08:17:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting analysis. Makes sense that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raines

        the scheme actually increases the electoral power of the rural states.

        It's an interesting point, that candidates waste efforts trying to get much more than 50% of the vote. If you get 70% of the vote in district A but lose district B by a single percentage point, you net zero electoral votes.

        The days when the electoral college was a necessity are long gone. We need one metric by which to determine a winner, and that needs to be the popular vote.

        "'Patriotism' is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson, 1775

        preborner: (n.) one who believes that the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth.

        by 1BQ on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 09:04:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  NPV is more than halfway to going into effect (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          1BQ

          The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

          The bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but since enacted by states).

          Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

          When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

          The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have been by state legislative action.

          The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 rural, small, medium, and large states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

          NationalPopularVote
          Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  •  Don't name it Phoenix (5+ / 0-)

    I wouldn't mind being in a redesigned southwestern desert state, but as a Tucson resident, I strongly object to it being named after that city north of us. I propose calling it Sahuaro after our magnificent cactus, or after any of our other natural wonders.

  •  Mesabi actually resembles Minnesota (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    Which is where I live.

  •  I can't quite tell (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    if I'm in Ozark or Atchafalaya.   But this is cool, very cool indeed.  =)  I think it'd be an improvement over the state lines in the Deep South as they are now.

  •  Plutoize the low population states (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    Follow the lead of astronomers in demoting Pluto to the status of dwarf planet.

    We could make the 6 states with populations under one million "dwarf states."  Each would get only one senator.  They could pair up to share a house member.

    These would be Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

    "Trust only those who doubt" Lu Xun

    by LookingUp on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 05:19:23 PM PST

  •  Chinati (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    Thought to be an apache word ch'íná'itíh meaning gate or mountain pass....thanks Wikipedia...

    "A weed is a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered." Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by Yo Bubba on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 05:20:50 PM PST

  •  If we could fix this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril
    a serious problem with the electoral college: namely, that California has 66 times the population of Wyoming but only 18 times the electoral votes. Of course, this size disparity is an even bigger problem in the Senate
    we could fix a LOT.

    - Resident of Northeast Mesabi

    Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

    by Mark Mywurtz on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 05:24:35 PM PST

  •  I have lived at various times (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    in Newark, Willamantic, Yerba Buena, Shasta, and now Maumee. My Peace Corps training was in Mammoth.

    Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

    by Mokurai on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 05:40:55 PM PST

  •  Huh? Why are states with little population (0+ / 0-)

    like Montana/Wyoming/Utah so huge? and places with lots of people small?

  •  Now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril


    THAT's Representative Democracy!

  •  More fun with maps... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davybaby, jes2, asm121

    Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature. If I had Bill Gates money, I'd buy Detroit.

    by ZenTrainer on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 06:01:22 PM PST

  •  Simply allow 1 Senator per 5 million people (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    Each state would get one Senator w another added once pop. Of 5M is reached, then another at 10M, etc.

    It accomplishes the same thing w/o messing w state & local governments.

    It actually comes out to about 50 Senators, distributed about the same by party as now, so politically, it is feasible.

    To keep approximately 100 Senators, the pop.-per-Senator could be increased slightly from time to time.

    A much simpler way to accomplish about the same purpose.

    "All politics is national."

    by Auriandra on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 06:15:31 PM PST

  •  Looks like I'm in Allegheny (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, RunawayRose

    ..even though I'm at the mouth of the river Scioto is named for.

    Cogito, ergo Democrata.

    by Ahianne on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 06:19:10 PM PST

  •  True Coloradans want a Rocky Mountain moniker (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    Not Ogallala, like the aquifer

  •   I live in Houston. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scott5js

    And, I live in Houston!  How 'bout that, we get our own state.  Cool.  

  •  I'm in Maumee under this map (0+ / 0-)

    Probably would have an R+ PVI to some degree. Indianapolis and Louisville aren't overwhelmingly liberal, and the rest of the state is conservative to some degree.

    There are three natural adversaries of the progressive movement: Republicans, the Democratic establishment, and the mainstream media

    by DownstateDemocrat on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 07:06:11 PM PST

  •  I live on Hawaii Island (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Nir

    but I find that this map makes us part of Shasta. How interesting.

    Mele Kalikimaka!

  •  I really kinda love (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Papuska

    that they called the whole state Mesabi!

  •  The United States - (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541, SpamNunn, FrankRose

    Is a federal union where all states exist on a coequal basis.  From the Northwest Ordinance - which predates the U.S. Constitution - new states were to enter the union on an equal basis with the original states.  Within any one state, the rule of one person, one vote applies - but to extend it to the nation, at large, dismisses the concept of union and the constitutional basis for that union.

    The United States are far more than 3.8 million square miles of real estate under the federal government.  (BTW - "are" was the preferred verb up until 1861.)  In addition, the relative state populations have changed dramatically over the years.  60 years ago, New York and Pennsylvania were the largest states - now it's California and Texas.  As they are certain to do in the future.

    •  Thank you! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnnygunn, SpamNunn

      I was waiting for someone to point this out.  I believe Alexander Hamilton proposed redrawing the states to be more equal, but that of course got nowhere.  States are distinct entities with distinct histories and needs.  The Senate is supposed to represent the constituent entities of the FEDERAL union with the House representing the people.  While I am not enthused about repealing the 17th amendment the historian in me feels compelled to suggest that we lost a key piece of a delicate constitutional balance when we took the Senate choice away from the state legislatures.  Also, I commented once upthread, but I thought on a forum such as this more people would realize that you cannot make the Senate proportional even by amendment.  As for NPV I feel like that is an end run around constitutional intent; I much prefer amending to provide for an actual popular vote.

      •  An amendment to make the Senate proportional... (0+ / 0-)

        ...or otherwise give one or more state(s) more senators than other state(s) would appear to require all 50 states to ratify (instead of 38 states for all other types of federal constitutional amendments), according to my interpretation of Article VII.

        According to my interpretation, the normal ratification process would be used for any amendment that affects the composition of the U.S. Senate but continues to provide that all states would get the same number of senators.

        There are three natural adversaries of the progressive movement: Republicans, the Democratic establishment, and the mainstream media

        by DownstateDemocrat on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 10:45:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  states are not that distinct anymore. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NMLib

        People are more mobile than ever. Something like 60% of the people in my state were not born here. Whatever unique character it had 50 or 100 years ago has been completely altered by newcomers from other states and countries.

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 11:43:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Even today though... (0+ / 0-)

          ...it's not practical to govern a country as large as ours as a unified whole or ignorant of our distinctiveness.  Even here in New England where the states are small and I personally live in MA close enough to NH that I hardly consider it out of state, suggesting that the states unify or that there is no difference would be considered fightin' words!

          •  hate to break it to you, but the states are (0+ / 0-)

            already unified in a great union from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

            What I mean is, I wasn't suggesting the states no longer should exist, just that their role as separate entities with meaningful interests to exert in the federal congress no longer should, at least in a way that subverts one man one vote. As I said above, we kind of got rid of that anyway when we started popular election of senators.

            ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

            by James Allen on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 09:09:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You do realize... (0+ / 0-)

              ...that there is no constitutional basis for one-person, one-vote right?  I likewise hate to break it to you, but there ARE very much different interests among the various states.  The states have different economies, different values, etc. and even with popular senatorial elections there is something to be said for a unitary state by state vote in addition to population based.  States come into the union on an equal basis and should IMO stay that way.

              •  Your argument lost (0+ / 0-)

                when we passed popular election of senators. We want to live by democratic principles like one man one vote. We don't care about the entity of the state as something separate from the people and their votes.

                And you are absolutely and unarguably* incorrect in stating that there is no constitutional basis for one person one vote: see Reynolds v. Sims. The Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision struck down unequal apportionment of state legislative districts based on the Equal Protection clause, in which they found one person one vote was protected. Many states had apportioned legislative districts not by people, but by county, much like the US Senate. The Supreme Court said this was unconstitutional.

                That doesn't apply to the US Senate of course because its explicitly created in the same constitution, but there is nonetheless a strong constitutional principle in favor of one person one vote.

                *you can argue that the Supreme Court was wrong, but their decision is the law.

                ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                by James Allen on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 11:51:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I do in fact disagree with the Court on that one. (0+ / 0-)

                  Nevertheless, I believe there is still something to be said for unitary voting as states that protects state by state interest on an equal basis.  Redrawing lines will never be agreed to by the states, nor should it IMO and if you do that you suggest redoing it every few years which is anathema to semi-sovereign entities which get to govern themselves internally.  Being from MA I LIKE that we're not Alabama, for example.  Heck, I can practically walk to NH, but I don't want their laws necessarily.

                  •  I'm not arguing for redrawing the lines (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm arguing for equal representation of people, not arbitrary state borders. State should be able to govern themselves, but they shouldn't have equal representation in the federal government.

                    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                    by James Allen on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 01:43:42 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  We'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. (0+ / 0-)

                      If they are governing themselves there is a valid argument that the governing entity, whether elected by the people or legislatures thereof, should get representation based on their existence as entities rather than by head count.  In a ederal constitutional republic some parts are more democratic and some less so, and that is as it should be IMO.

        •  Not Exactly - (0+ / 0-)

          Wyoming may be a red state, but I cherish the values of trust and mutual support that are evident by my not locking either house or car.  When a person breaks down on the road, one is expected to stop and help - even in this cell phone age.  When a new family moves in down the street, they are loaded down with free food by outstretched hands.  Sorry, but there are differences still.

          •  Sorry, but you can find people helping their (0+ / 0-)

            neighbors in a lot of places in this country.

            ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

            by James Allen on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 09:09:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Agree - (0+ / 0-)

              But it is more individualized and in-group.
              There's a reason why people dial 911 for a car off the road rather than stop on a busy freeway.  And there's a reason why people lock their cars and houses.  Fortunately, I do not have to do that.  And that IS a difference - - since you were talking about homogenization.

      •  Constitution Gives Power to States (0+ / 0-)

        The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.  

        The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

        The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

        The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.

        Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

        In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

        In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

        In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

        The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

        When the National Popular Vote bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

        The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 rural, small, medium, and large states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

        While, a constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

        NationalPopularVote       
        Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

        •  States can do it... (0+ / 0-)

          ...but I am opposed to this method.  As long as there is still an electoral college a given state's electors should represent the will of that state IMO.

          •  Constitution Leaves It Up to States (0+ / 0-)

            Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate.  Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

            Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."   The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

            The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

            In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

            Opponents remain stuck on a misconception that the plan would “force” states to give their electoral votes to a candidate that may not have won their state, but this misses the point entirely. The National Popular Vote plan changes the Electoral College from an obstruction of the popular will to a ratifier in that it would always elect the candidate who has won the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Rather than states throwing their votes away, the actual voters themselves are empowered, as each and every one of us would have an equal vote for president – something we are sorely lacking under the Electoral College.
            http://tinyurl.com/...

            National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state.  Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

            And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates.  Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

            “The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states.  The NPV states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.” - Vikram David Amar

            In state polls of voters each with a second  question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

             Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

            Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

            Support for a National Popular Vote
            South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
            see http://tinyurl.com/...

            Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2.
            see http://tinyurl.com/...

            Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2.
            see http://tinyurl.com/...

  •  I think the Ho Chunk and Potawatomi would object (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DownstateDemocrat

    to having an other tribe as the state name

  •  Canaveral... (0+ / 0-)

    but almost in Miami!

    In an insane society, the sane man would appear insane

    by TampaCPA on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 09:21:13 PM PST

  •  I be in Mendocino. (0+ / 0-)

    But I think the problem for such mapmaking is that population is so changeable, expecially in climatic-shifting situations.

  •  I support the electoral college. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SpamNunn, saluda

    It reflects the federal nature of the country. And forces candidates to campaign in states which don't necessarily have the largest population.

    •  80% of US is Ignored in Presidential Campaigns (0+ / 0-)

      The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

      Even in the recent handful of states where a presidential vote matters to the candidates, the value of a vote is different.

      Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.

      The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

      Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election.  After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election. None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual. About 80% of the country was ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. It was more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

      80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

      The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

      Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

      With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

      The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

      During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win.  They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected.  Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

      The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections.  It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.  

      Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

      States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

      •  There might be a better option. (0+ / 0-)

        And that would be to adopt the system used in Maine and Nebraska - where two electoral college votes are awarded to the winner of the vote in the state, and the rest are split by congressional district. Obviously, unfair gerrymanders like PA or NC would have to be reversed, but if more CDs were competitive, that would mean that campaigns would have to spend outside swing states, and most voters would live either in a state or a CD where their votes counted, but at the same time, votes would be redistributed from the most populous states to the less populous ones, helping to ensure everyone got their voices heard.

  •  Yet another interesting proposal to circumvent (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, saluda

    the Constitution.

    There is a procedure in the Constitution for changing it.  If that many people support this idea, the proponents of the idea should use it, instead of spending time devising ways to achieve what they cannot achieve through the prescribed process.  
    Residents of small states, like my home Garden State, like things the way they are thank you.

    “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

    by SpamNunn on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 05:10:12 AM PST

    •  Americans, including Small States Support NPV (0+ / 0-)

      In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
      Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
      Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

      The National Popular Vote bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers, in 21 rural, small, medium-small, medium, and large population states, including one house in Arkansas(6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), New York (29), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island (4), Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13). These ten jurisdictions have 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

      NationalPopularVote.com

    •  NPV Uses Constitutional Process for Change (0+ / 0-)

      The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws,  not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

      The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.  In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

      The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

      The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

      Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."   The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

      The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.  Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet).  Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

      Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

      In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

      The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

      The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

      As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

      The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

      •  NPV would give the choice of who is President to (0+ / 0-)

        whoever could figure out how to bribe the populations of our largest cities to vote for them - hardly a way to give small states or flyover America a warm and fuzzy feeling about whoever that process would jam down their throats as President.  No thanks.    

        “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

        by SpamNunn on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 10:17:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The fact that most people don't understand the (0+ / 0-)

          concept of federalism, or why the small states need a big seat at the table does not make the idea a good idea.  People frequently are attracted to things that look good for them in theory and end up being not so good in practice.

          “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

          by SpamNunn on Tue Dec 24, 2013 at 10:20:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  NPV is Exercise of Power of States (0+ / 0-)

            With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

            The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

            During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win.  They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected.  Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

            The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters.  10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

            80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

            Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

            Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

            The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections.  It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.  

            Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

            States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

            Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."   The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

            Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government.  The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government.  The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

          •  Small State Realities (0+ / 0-)

            Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

            With National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America.  Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support.  Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

            Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states.  80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns.

            Winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.

            In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.  Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) -   got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states.  In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

            In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

            In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.    

            Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

            Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue.  If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

            Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group.  Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%,  NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%,  SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%,  and WY- 69%.

            Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

            NationalPopularVote.com

        •  Current System Maximizes Incentive & Opp (0+ / 0-)

          Foreseeing apocalyptic mythical fraud as a reason for keeping a system where most people's votes don't count for anything is not a compelling argument.

          The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

          National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression.  One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

          The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes.  The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

          For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

          Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

        •  Big City Realities (0+ / 0-)

          16% of Americans live in rural areas.

          With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
          The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.  

          Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

          If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

          Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger).   A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.   If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

          In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

          Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

          There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

          With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically.  There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state.  When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win.  A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

          Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

        •  Now President Can Be Elected with just 23% of Vote (0+ / 0-)

          With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

  •  national popular vote? (0+ / 0-)
    A national popular vote is nothing but mob rule.
    Re-drawing state lanes to make things more equal?
    That's nice but now you have disenfranchised the middle of the country and allowed large urban hubs to rule over the majority of the country even though most of the country is rural.
    Yes lets just change the system so it works to your advantage because that's the fair and impartial thing to do.
    More like silence opposition.
    Mob rule is the whole reason our founders made the country a constitutional republic and set up country the way it is.
    The rights of he individual are sacred ideas like this lead to East Germany in the end.
     
    •  "most is rural?" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a gilas girl

      Do you mean most by area or most by population? Because I believe most of the population is urban.

    •  Candidate With the Most Votes Should Win (0+ / 0-)

      Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate.  Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

      The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

      The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

      In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states. Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.  Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.  

      The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.  In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

      The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. In 2008, 98% of the campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

      The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

    •  No One would be disenfranchised (0+ / 0-)

      Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

      The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
      National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

      With National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.  

      None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
      The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

      Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%.

      16% of Americans live in rural areas.

      With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
      The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.  

      Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

      Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.

      If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

      A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

      The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

      With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

      Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger).   A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.   If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

      In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

      Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

      There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

      With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically.  There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state.  When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win.  A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

      Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics.  Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

  •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

    One of the states is named Scioto!

  •  Menominee (0+ / 0-)

    I'd live in Menominee, which would be pretty cool, except it would take forever to travel from one end of the state to the other. The last time I drove across the Upper Peninsula, I think it took 6-8 hours. Going around the south of Lake Michigan would also be a crazy long drive if one wanted to travel from one north corner to the other. Plus then we'd be grouped with Packer and Badger fans, and I'm not sure that would go so well. (Then again, maybe then I'd have a decent pro football team to cheer for.)

  •  Easy for me...Tampa Bay... (0+ / 0-)

    And as someone alluded to what color this "state" would be....purple.....Tyrian purple if I may add.   Look no further than the real life race to replace CW Bill Young's seat (FL 13).   Oh well.

  •  the small states (0+ / 0-)

    The small states don't have as much influence over the electoral college  as people think.  Even if you win all the states with 3 or 4 electoral votes (i.e., with 1 or 2 congressional districts), you only have 44 electoral votes.  Throw in the ones with 5, and you are only up to 69.  Your party could win 39 out of the 51 states (counting DC as a state) and still lose the electoral college.

    Ironically, the system actually favors the big states, because you can leverage a lot of electoral votes just by flipping a few thousand individuals in an evenly-divided big state.  (Case in point: Florida 2000.)

    The smaller states are in any case a diverse group, which have little in common aside from their small size.  They aren't even more "agrarian." (The two most populous states, Texas and California, are also two of the biggest agricultural producers.) If any Presidential candidate ever managed to win the support of each and every one of the 39 smallest states, he or she would probably pick up at least a few of the 12 biggest ones as well along the way.

    •  Big State Realities (0+ / 0-)

      With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

      But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question.  In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey).  The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country.  For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.  

      In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
      * Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
      * New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
      * Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
      * North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
      * California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
      * Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
      * New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

      To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

    •  Small State Realities (0+ / 0-)

      Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

      With National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America.  Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support.  Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

      Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states.  80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns.

      Winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.

      In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.  Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) -   got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states.  In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

      In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

      In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.     

      Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

      Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue.  If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

      Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group.  Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%,  NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%,  SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%,  and WY- 69%.

      Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

      NationalPopularVote.com

  •  I want out of Ogallala! (0+ / 0-)

    Move Colorado Springs to Shiprock!  I'll be damned if I'll live in the same state as Dick Cheney!  Doug Lamborn is bad enough!  Furthermore, the map as drawn would put me into a different state from my incarcerated spouse.  I wonder for how many other people it would do that.

  •  Hawai'i is not Shasta (0+ / 0-)

    and should not pop up on this map, as it is an artist's map. As such, there doesn't have to be any 'authenticity', it seems like everything goes. While it makes sense to change the electoral college, please take note that Hawai'i is Hawai'i. A rigged 'statehood election' doesn't right the wrong of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. Hawai'i should be taken out of this map, as it is an independent and sovereign Nation. The US occupation of Hawai'i is as illegal as any other occupation of sovereign Nations on the planet who happen to not possess any WMD's.

  •  Pocono (0+ / 0-)

    I would currently be living in the State of Pocono, postal abbreviation PC (LOL)
    Our state capital would be Scranton.

    Next year, am moving, and would be in the State of Shenandoah, perhaps a postal abbreviation of SN - because SH would likely go to the State of Shasta, and the current State Capital of Raleigh.  Although, since we do not know EXACTLY where we are moving to, just the area...we could theoretically also end up in the future State of Tidewater, postal abbreviation TW, State Capital of Richmond.

    Of course this would never happen, and is basically an exercise in "mental masturbation" but it's a fun one!

  •  Not a bad idea (0+ / 0-)

    The GOP would automatically block something like this because with the population of current states like N.Y. and California they would never ever again win a presidential election. Of course now they can't win anything without gerrymandering, messing with voting machines, lies and propaganda and removing potential Democratic voters from the rolls. If they weren't able to do any of that they would get about 20% to 25% of the popular vote.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site