http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x634377

From CT Voter's blog, excerpt from his testimony on National Popular Vote Compaq proposed in Connecticut:

"The Electoral College limits the risk and the damage to a few swing states in each election. With a national popular vote, errors, voter suppression, and fraud in all states would count against the national totals.

There is no national recount available for close elections, to establish an accurate number. Only in some individual states, if close numbers happened to occur in those states, would there be even a fraction of a national recount."

more at this link
http://www.ctvoterscount.org/testimony-on-eight-bills-including-the-national-popular-vote/

"Question: Wouldn't this make it easier for fraud if fewer votes can be added or switched across the whole country, rather than just in a few states that are required to win under the college model?"

Actually, under the proposed "National Popular Vote" (NPV) system, a lot more votes that could change the winner of an election could be switched in a lot more places without detection. If every vote counted, which seems desirable on the surface, you could switch a few million votes in states that won't audit their elections, and even states that try to detect and correct their own vote switching will have to give away their electoral votes to the apparent popular vote winner -- if they sign on to the NPV Compact.

In other words, even if a state has a squeaky clean election system such as hand counted paper ballots with no voter deception or suppression, they could end up giving their electoral votes to the candidate who loses decisively in that state, but appears to win the national popular vote which is NOT verifiable.

The NPV proposed does not do away with the electoral college; it just tries to get states to ignore it!

As far as who is in favor of this, it's hard to say but I think there are a fair number of uninformed progressive types buying into the one-person, one-vote meme. What they don't realize is that there is no way given our current voting systems to know that the national popular vote tally is correct.

Who else might be in favor it? People who want to steal Presidential elections.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing 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. 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.

Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .

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, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?"

Certainly, if someone knew in advance that they could alter the outcome of the 2000 election by stealing under 1000 votes in Florida, they might be better off taking their chances with that than stealing votes all over the country. But since one wouldn't know that in advance -- and one might not be well connected in whatever state(s) turn out to be crucial -- one might prefer to steal the votes wherever one can get them. That might tend to be in the highly partisan states rather than the battleground states. Or the opportunities for mayhem might have little to do with partisanship and a lot to do with the technology.

Georgia votes on paperless touchscreens. Lots of people will tell you they were hacked in 2002; I don't see much evidence of it. But, frankly, those systems don't produce much evidence of anything. Shouldn't we fix that -- among other things -- before we implement a national popular vote? Georgia alone has about 4 million voters. You may think it would be crazy hard to steal half a million votes or more nationwide, but how sure are you?

National Popular Vote does not ignore the Electoral College

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It 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 U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures 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. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states. That majority of ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

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.

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current 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.

Yes, because it's too hard to amend the Constitution to do away with the Electoral College, NPV does not ignore it, but rather allocates EC votes differently. So the EC would still exist, but only on paper. The reality is that states who sign onto this thing will have to GIVE AWAY their electoral votes to whichever candidate APPEARS to win the popular vote. That's what I meant by ignoring by the EC.

A state that a candidate wins may have to give its electoral votes away to the LOSING candidate in that state, just because some folks in some other states claim that this loser got X number of votes. My state has no way of verifying any of this. Does yours?

Unless you can figure out a way to verify that the national popular vote tally is CORRECT, this NPV thing is a very bad idea. And you don't seem to want to deal with that.

If you're concerned about how states allocate their electoral votes, as you know, this does not have to be winner-take-all under the current system. However, with NPV, it could end up being loser-take-all in many states, with the loser and the winner unverifiable.

So stop with the NPV talking points and tell us how you plan to count all those votes.

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 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: 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 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes -- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


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).
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
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 7% 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 Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
Tennessee (11) --78% (D), 73% (R)
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://tinyurl.com/3oyeejj

...amend the Constitution. Should be a piece of cake.

I will tell you this from experience: I live in NY and some of the state legislators I've talked to about this issue don't have a CLUE how NPV works. They have no idea they'll be giving away our electoral votes to candidates who lose the state. And even less of an idea that the apparent winner could be winning based on hacked elections.

The reason they vote for NPV is because of lobbying from well-funded but ill-informed advocates with no effective opposition from those without the funding.

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes -- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

* * *

A survey of 800 New York voters conducted on December 22-23, 2008 showed 79% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By gender, support was 89% among women and 69% among men.
By age, support was 60% among 18-29 year olds, 74% among 30-45 year olds, 85% among 46-65 year olds, and 82% for those older than 65.
By race, support was 78% among whites (representing 67% of respondents, 78% among African Americans (representing 18% of respondents), 86% among Hispanics (representing 12% of respondents), and 70% among Others (representing 4% of respondents).
Support was 86% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, 78% among Independence Party members (representing 8% of respondents), 50% among Conservative Party members (representing 3% of respondents), 100% among Working Families Party members (representing 2% of respondents), and 7% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).

* * *

Recent Legislative History in New York:
On June 7, 2011 the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill (S4208 / AB 489) by a 47–13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21–11 and Democrats favoring it by 26–2. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17–7. The bill now goes to the New York State Assembly. The bill passed the New York Senate in 2010 when the chamber was controlled by Democrats and has now passed with the chamber controlled by Republicans.
In February 2011, Senator Joseph A. Griffo introduced the National Popular Vote bill (S4208) in the New York Senate.

The National Popular Vote bill in the Assembly is sponsored by Jeffrey Dinowitz, Fred W. Thiele Jr., Sandy Galef, Charles D. Lavine, Brian Kavanagh, Joan L. Millman, Mike Spano, Richard N. Gottfried, Vivian E. Cook, Ellen Jaffee, Steve Englebright, N. Nick Perry, Daniel J. O'Donnell, Amy Paulin, Barbara Lifton, Karim Camara, Annette Robinson, Michele R. Titus, Felix Ortiz, Jose Rivera, Phil Ramos, Inez D. Barron, William F. Boyland, Jr., Alec Brook-Krasny, William Colton, James F. Brennan, Nelson L. Castro, Donna A. Lupardo, Nettie Mayersohn, Linda B. Rosenthal, John J. McEneny, Michelle Schimel, Hakeem Jeffries, Vanessa L. Gibson, Earlene Hooper, Naomi Rivera, Aileen M. Gunther, William B. Magnarelli, Sam Hoyt, Peter Manuel Rivera, David I. Weprin, Eric Stevenson, Mike Miller, Robert Rodriguez, George Latimer, Guillermo Linares, Philip Boyle, Daniel J. Burling, Marcos Crespo, Clifford W. Crouch, Steven Cymbrowitz, Michael G. DenDekker, Janet L. Duprey, Gary Finch, Deborah J. Glick, Stephen Hawley, Carl E. Heastie, Rhoda Jacobs, Rory I. Lancman, George Latimer, Joseph R. Lentol, Peter D. Lopez, William Magee, Alan Maisel, Margaret M. Markey, Grace Meng, Dean Murray, Robert Oaks, Audrey I. Pheffer, Andrew Raia, Teresa R. Sayward, William Scarborough, Robert K. Sweeney, Matthew Titone, Helene E. Weinstein, Harvey Weisenberg, and Kenneth Zebrowski.

On June 7, 2010, the New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill (S2286A / A1580B), with over two-thirds of both political parties supporting the bill in a 52-7 roll call. The vote was 22-5 among Senate Republicans (with 3 not voting) and 30-2 among Senate Democrats. The bill now goes to the 150-member Assembly where it has 80 sponsors.

On February 17, 2009, the National Popular Vote bill (S2286A) was introduced in the New York Senate by Senators Kevin S. Parker, Liz Krueger, and George Onorato. The bill currently has a total of 18 sponsoring, also including Senators Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Antoine M. Thompson, Bill Perkins, Diane J. Savino, Eric Adams, Eric Schneiderman, Hiram Monserrate, John L. Sampson, Jose M. Serrano, Neil D. Breslin, Ruth Hassell-Thompson, Shirley L. Huntley, Velmanette Montgomery, William T. Stachowski, and Darrel J. Aubertine.

On December 23, 2008, the National Popular Vote bill was introduced in the New York Assembly for the 2009 session by Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz and others. The amended bill (A1580B) currently has a total 61 sponsors in the Assembly, including Assembly members Adam Clayton Powell IV, Alan Maisel, Anthony S. Seminerio, Felix Ortiz, Fred W. Thiele Jr., Jose R. Peralta, Jose Rivera, Karim Camara, Jeffrey Dinowitz, Keith L.T. Wright, Marc S. Alessi, N. Nick Perry, Phil Ramos, Robert K. Sweeney, Steve Englebright, Steven Cymbrowitz, William F. Boyland, Jr., William Magee, William Scarborough, Adriano Espaillat, Alec Brook-Krasny, Annette Robinson, Aurelia Greene, Brian Kavanagh, Charles D. Lavine, Daniel J. O'Donnell, David Koon, Deborah J. Glick, Grace Meng, Inez D. Barron, James F. Brennan, John J. McEneny, Jonathan L. Bing, Linda B. Rosenthal, Marcus Molinaro, Micah Kellner, Michael G. DenDekker, Mike Spano, Nelson L. Castro, Peter D. Lopez, Richard N. Gottfried, William Colton, Amy Paulin, Audrey I. Pheffer, Barbara Lifton, Donna A. Lupardo, Ellen Jaffee, Ginny Fields, Joan L. Millman, Michele R. Titus, Nettie Mayersohn, Patricia A. Eddington, Sandy Galef, Teresa R. Sayward, Vivian E. Cook, Rhoda Jacobs, Philip Boyle, Joseph R. Lentol, Kenneth Zebrowski, Margaret M. Markey, Janele Hyer-Spencer, Carl E. Heastie, Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr., Martin Malve Dilan, Pedro Espada, Jr., Suzi Oppenheimer, Michelle Schimel, Hakeem Jeffries, Vanessa L. Gibson, Earlene Hooper, Naomi Rivera, David I. Weprin, Rory I. Lancman, Peter D. Lopez, Frank K. Skartados, Matthew Titone, Andrew Hevesi, Aileen M. Gunther, William B. Magnarelli, Al Stirpe, Daniel J. Burling, Clifford W. Crouch, Janet L. Duprey, Dean Murray, Addie J. Russell, and Helene E. Weinstein.

Each legislator certainly understands the bill and how it works. Each is educated on the bill personally, and with the exhaustive information in "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote " http://www.every-vote-equal.com/

NationalPopularVote

Well the founding fathers created the voting system as effectively as they could. They purposed the voting system to help protect the minority, which was the rich (founding fathers and wealthy people) so that the people couldn't make a law or elect someone to office that would take the rights of the rich away (Popular vote). The founding fathers also thought that the people where to stupied to be allowed for direct election of a president and bills, becides the fact it would take forever to count all the votes. The fathers therefor set up the Electoral college to allow more educated individuals to make the decisions. Now today there would be less people that are ignorant of government because of technology, but there is still the fact of protecting peoples rights from direct democracy.