Should Utah's electoral votes for president go to winner of the national popular vote?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 10:33 p.m.

    Anyone who truly studies and understands this issue says a resounding NO and heck NO! The general election would be won by states on both the east and west coasts' liberal vote. Those of us in the middle would be swallowed up by their populist winner-take-all vote. Do people really study this issue or are they just following along off the cliff? Unbelievable!

    Electoral vote...all the way!

  • conservative lady Ramona, CA
    Nov. 22, 2017 6:05 p.m.

    Anyone who understands the importance of balancing large population states against low population states would definitely vote NO and heck NO on this issue. Those who want California and New York and Chicago to make decisions for the whole U.S. rather than individuals in low population states are sorely uninformed. I was born and raised in Montana, a very low population state and national candidates seldom show up there, too few votes to waste their time, right?
    Last comment: To make such a serious decision based on the fact that you can't stand the way this election turned out is foolishness. If a change were made what do you do the next time when the popular vote is someone you don't like either? Many of us disliked the socialist / communist agenda of the last president, and the many corrupt actions that are now being revealed, we didn't pout and want to change the election! We voted this time to protect our country, its traditions and culture, not the man.

  • beautifulutah Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 12:23 p.m.

    The Founders were land owners. They wanted to make certain they could hold onto their property, including slaves. They didn't want a popular vote because they didn't want to
    give power over to the common people. We are the 99%, the common people, the popular vote. The electoral college is still designed for the 1%.
    We, the People, need to have equal say in who is elected to lead our country.

  • Edmunds Tucker St George, UT
    Nov. 21, 2017 1:51 p.m.

    From your Deseret News Oct 24, 2004. George F. Will: Liberalized voting rules open door to fraud. 'lawyers asserting novel theories that purport to demonstrate that sensible rules, such as requiring voters to have identification, are illegal, even unconstitutional.' old-fashioned fraud. Concerning which, there is a timely and disturbing new book, "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy" by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal. National Voter Registration Act — a k a "Motor Voter." It, Fund says, imposed "fraud-friendly" rules. since 1995, Philadelphia's population has declined 13 percent but registered voters have increased 24 percent. Ohio. The U.S. Census Bureau's 2003 estimate is that in Franklin County — Columbus — there are approximately 815,000 people 18 or over. But 845,720 are now registered. Milwaukee television station WTMJ found in 2002. Fund says it "filmed Democratic campaign workers handing out food and small sums of money to residents of a home for the mentally ill in Kenosha, after which the patients were shepherded into a separate room and given absentee ballots." So fraud anywhere in the nation would result in fraud in Utah.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 21, 2017 1:28 p.m.

    This is really dumb -- people who understand our constitutional republic see the absolute need for the electorial college. The popular vote is nice but it is very unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. New York, Chicago, Baltimore, LA all have huge minority population that block vote Democrat regardless of who is running. These people don't have a clue about the issues and they don't care...except for the free stuff. This is why the dirty Democrats hate border security because it halts their guaranteed votes from the minorites and illegals. And why do the minorities love the Democrats? Because of the hand outs. Yes its all about the free stuff and the Dem's are always on the lookout for votes to buy. Never mind that the handouts bankrupt the middle class -- no matter -- the working middle class don't vote for the sleazy Dem's anymore anyway so the Democrat's don't care. Block voting is the same as group think -- it requires zero inteligence and it is so easy to do.

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Nov. 21, 2017 9:22 a.m.

    I am not in favor of this compact. Giving large states the ability to control how Utah awards its electoral votes is asking for chaos. What if the popular vote nationally is the complete opposite of the popular vote in Utah? Then our electoral votes would be awarded contrary to the will of Utah voters.

  • mattman1 Taylorsville, UT
    Nov. 21, 2017 9:19 a.m.

    For those saying they'll ignore Utah in the future, how is that different than now? Since Reagan, Utah has been reliably Republican, so no one campaigns here.

    This bill just makes sense. I know right now that no matter who I vote for for president, my vote will actually count for the Republican, no matter how bad the Republican is (and this one was horrible).

    That's the reality. Those in California who vote Republican know that their votes will go to the Democratic nominee.

    With a national popular vote, it's one vote for one person.

  • ksampow Ogden, UT
    Nov. 21, 2017 9:15 a.m.

    The constitution has an electoral college for a reason. If the president were selected by popular vote, then candidates would spend all of their time where most of the people live. A candidate could become President by winning the largest states and ignoring the rest. Small states and rural areas would be ignored. Electoral college votes are determined by the number of seats in congress - part based on population and part based on giving each state equal weight. it was a brilliant compromise, not one that we should toss aside.

  • MacD slc, UT
    Nov. 21, 2017 3:54 a.m.

    Peterson is not a Republican if he thinks this is a good idea.
    Do this if you want LA and SF to pick all of your presidents forever.

  • Another Perspective Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 21, 2017 2:23 a.m.

    Utah has tourism from other states. It occurs to me that while these people are here, they are under the jurisdiction of laws that Utah legislators made that they were not able to vote for or against.

    If people are willing to certify that they will visit Utah in the future, why not let people from other states participate in our state and local elections?

  • JLindow St George, UT
    Nov. 20, 2017 6:35 p.m.

    @Square Peg

    If the proposal was to change to a winner take all system that grouped entire cities together, you would have a point. But that isn't the proposal. The proposal is to allow every citizen's vote to have equal weight.

    Some people will never be convinced that democracy is preferable to the alternative, and some states will never be on board with the idea of a national popular vote.

    Fortunately, it's only necessary for slightly more than half of the electoral votes worth of states to be on board. Since states are allowed to decide how to assign their electors, it would even be completely consistent with the constitution.

    And the people who have been indoctrinated into a mistaken hate and fear of democracy would just have to live with it. And their vote for President would finally matter too.

  • Square Peg Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 20, 2017 5:36 p.m.

    Bad idea. The fact that people know how we will vote--and use their resources accordingly--doesn't make our votes irrelevant. When the "swing states" become "swing cities" then our votes will be irrelevant and we can celebrate having a "President of The Largest Liberal Cities" instead of a President of The United States.

    No Thanks.

    Returning to the original intent of the Constitution seems wiser than turning farther away from it.

  • thesob Goleta, CA
    Nov. 20, 2017 3:42 p.m.

    I oppose this idea for several reasons, however, I would like to address the one issue that hasn't been discussed - Voter Fraud. Clinton won the popular vote, really because of California. Trump requested that the California vote be verified, which the Democrats promptly halted. It really was a non-issue in the last election because there was no question who won the state. However, what would happen in a popular vote?
    Having worked in the state over a dozen years, lets just say I suspect its not a question of if fraud occurred, but how much. The Democrats in the state have proven it will protect its voters / potential voters as demonstrated how they are defying the government by becoming a sanctuary state. If they now control who the next president would be, why would cooperate with any recount / verification effort. They would just say, "You have no proof", and that would be that.

  • Rick for Truth Provo, UT
    Nov. 20, 2017 11:57 a.m.

    No! Why would Utah ever want to give it’s voting franchise and constitutional rights away to other states? Why would Utah ever want to give away it vote to California and New York? Nope, not going to happen. Another liberal dream scam.

  • JLindow St George, UT
    Nov. 20, 2017 11:14 a.m.

    For people in non-swing states (which is the majority of people in the country, and the majority of states), your vote for President can be counted before it has been cast. Meaning it is worth exactly nothing and you may as well have stayed home.

    Under the current system, your vote for President in Utah is as worthless as it is in California, since it is prevented from having any chance of affecting the outcome. That's regardless of which party you vote for.

    Meanwhile, the votes of people in swing states are inflated all out of proportion since they are the only ones that can affect the outcome.

    The current system flies in the face of "one person one vote", allows Florida, Ohio, and a handful of other states to decide the outcome, and decreases voter participation among people who realize that their vote for President is impotent.

    But judging by the responses and number of likes below, none of that matters to the folks who care not a bit about democracy as long as their side can gain an advantage.

  • Deano32 West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 20, 2017 11:04 a.m.

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Is the goal of our presidential election to have Utah's delegates represent the other 99% of The United States, or represent the people of Utah? In the past 10 presidential elections, Utah's vote has gone against the popular vote 6 times. Let's not become sheeple - just following the herd. Looking at Utah's electoral percentage along with population percentages, my vote counts 116% compared to a Californians' 84%. Our vote (along with all other small states) does matter.

  • JMHO Eagle Mountain, UT
    Nov. 20, 2017 10:06 a.m.

    It seems like this was what the founding fathers debated. They were looking for the best fit for a government when starting from scratch. They thought of a straight republic where the states had total control individually. They decided against that idea. They thought of a straight democracy where popular vote decides everything. This gave too much power to the Federal Government in their opinion.
    They settled on a democratic republic. My opinion is they were way ahead of the curve in their thinking. It might not be perfect, but it gives the best balance to the power of the mob over the power of the few.

  • lars Ft Collins, CO
    Nov. 20, 2017 9:27 a.m.

    @nonceleb: absolutely agree, even though I'm conservative. Why not use a Nebraska-type system where the state can send in a mixed delegation? That would absolutely bring some attention to Utah for both parties, where the possibility of putting at least one congressional district in play for the Democrats means Utah can no longer be taken for granted. Plus, I have a hard time believing that popular-vote proponents wouldn't see this as at least a step in the right direction for their goals. (Incidentally, I wouldn't mind seeing some of the bigger solid-blue or solid-red states take a similar approach, especially the ones that are so vocal on making every vote count. CA, NY, IL, TX I'm looking at you...)

  • Gordon Jones Draper, Utah
    Nov. 20, 2017 7:49 a.m.

    If you want to change the Electoral College, amend the Constitution. This procedure is blatantly unconstitutional, in addition to being unwise. Spending a day in Brooklyn gives a candidate exposure to more voters than spending a month in Utah. Not hard to see who gets attention and who gets ignored.

  • Sam63 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 20, 2017 7:15 a.m.

    Bad idea! This proposal would send all of Utah's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote NOT the winner of Utah's popular vote. Talk about making Utah completely irrelevant - this would be extremely disenfranching to Utah voters.

  • today gunnison, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 11:46 p.m.

    NO! Why would any one want to give away ones representation. The electoral college allow small states the right to be counted.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 10:23 p.m.

    If any of my representatives vote to give Utah's vote to other states, they WILL NOT receive my vote in the next election.

    I suspect most Utahns feel the same way. Even if it passes in the legislature, it will not stand. It will be overturned.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 10:09 p.m.

    What is wrong with Utah's votes going toward the person who Utahns vote for?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 10:05 p.m.

    If Utah's votes goes to winner of the national popular vote, even if Utahns didn't vote for that candidate, then why should Utahns bother voting?

  • JohnMill Australia, 00
    Nov. 19, 2017 9:39 p.m.

    If Utah wants more political clout as a state in Presidential elections the problem is not just that its small, the problem is that it is so reliably Republican.
    Give the Dems a whiff of a chance and they'll all come running.

  • ERB Eagle Mountain, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 9:28 p.m.

    Sorry, but Utah doesn't want to vote itself into irrelevance.

  • KI7OM Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 8:54 p.m.

    Two concerns not mentioned in previous posts come to mind:
    1-With a national popular election what would happen if a recount were called?
    2-Unless universal voter ID is required with an iron clad assurance that only US citizens would vote this is dead before it even gets started.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 8:15 p.m.

    @Frozen Fractals: "One person, one vote gives every single person in every single state an equal voice."

    It also means that 40+ States would be able to outlaw elective abortions while about 40 would limit marriage to heterosexual, conjugal unions.

    You can't demand pure democracy when it suites you and then go running to anti-democratic institutions like the courts when you lose the popular vote on issues like abortion, definition of marriage, or even civil rights.

    The opposition to the Electoral College highlights an interesting phenomenon. Our liberal neighbors demonstrate their contempt for the clear, black-letter language of the constitution--Electoral College, Equal representation in the Senate for all States, the individual rights to own and carry firearms suitable for militia service, free expression of religion--while worshiping extra-constitutional judicial or executive mandates such as elective abortion, marriage benefits for homosexuals, or letting boys use the girls' locker room.

    We are a nation divided with some of us wanting to abide the constitution as written and properly amended, but with others only liking the constitution when it supports their views.

  • old cuss 101 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 7:30 p.m.

    If Rep. Peterson can't explain to his constituents the brilliance of the Electoral College, we should recommend a GED session of Civics 97 followed by the regular 101.

    The Electoral college was a stroke of Founding Father brilliance intended to serve as a leveling mechanism between highly disparate members of the electorate. It has been doing exactly what it was envisioned and intended to do, taking highly concentrated masses of voters and deterring them from overrunning the more dilute segments of society.

    Because of its ethical consistency, Utah is not ignored, but taken for granted. That is not a bad thing as long as our ethics are sound. We can potentially serve as a reference point, a source of wisdom on the mount.

    A problem with the last election was that both parties fielded terrible candidates, but the core of America wanted to derail the bureaucratic train off its recent rails. Hence the coalition of "democrat special interest groups" found in abundance on the coasts and in the big cities still needs to give sway to the defensive mass of the broad middle class, both cultural and economic. Our need is to settle ourselves and move forward on a better, steady course.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 6:37 p.m.

    @surf is up
    "The democrats have already packed the states with the largest number of delegates in attempts to corner the electoral college"

    That doesn't even make sense. The states with the most bang for your buck are the smaller states since electoral votes are based on the total count of House + Senate members in the state. A vote in Wyoming has 3.6 times the power as one in California because of the ratio of electoral votes to population.

    Plus there's no point to "packing" California. Clinton got over 3 million more votes than Trump. It'd be beneficial to Democrats not to have more voters in California but rather for about a million of those voters to live somewhere else like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

    @Dave Nash
    "Can you imagine allowing the entire country to vote for Utah's Senators and Congressmen?"

    It'd be crazy. Which is why this proposal is only being suggested for the one thing everyone in the country does actually vote for.

    But let's reverse it. Could you imagine electing a Utah Senator by giving each county in Utah electoral votes and counting those up instead of the actual vote total?

  • rkr1 Sandy, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 5:54 p.m.

    This is a terrible idea. Why would we let Southern California, New York City, and Chicago control our elections.

  • redleif Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 5:41 p.m.

    I disagree with the idea that a State would surrender it’s vote to the national popular vote. It goes against the guarantee in the Constitution to provide each State with a republican form of government - meaning each State would have a voice and representation in the federal government.

    There is an important distinction between the interests of the States and the interests of the People that counterbalance each other. The House of Representatives is to represent the interests of the People. The Senate is to represent the interests of the States. The President is to represent the interests of the nation as a whole - States and People.

    The process for electing the President was wisely and intelligently designed to reflect these balances. We have, over time, changed the original process such that the electoral college is not fully understood.

    If changes were to be made I would like to see efforts made to apply the constitutional principles the framers employed. I view the national popular vote as moving away from these principles, which will creater greater imbalance and less freedom.

  • Lets check the facts Santa Fe, NM
    Nov. 19, 2017 5:22 p.m.

    No

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 19, 2017 4:07 p.m.

    "If the election were to be decided on straight popular vote, it would make the small western states even more irrelevant that they already are"

    No that is absolutely wrong. It makes them more irrelevant in the Presidential election...so what? You all still get 2 senators, and a representative portion of House members.

    Why can't one leg of the three legged stool be absolute democracy. One person one vote. As demographics have shifted over the past 100 years this is not only wise but critical to a vibrant democracy..Republic or not.

  • MDB Utah, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 3:45 p.m.

    This is absurd. Let’s join forces with the bluest states in the country and pretend it will make us relevant. If you throw out California and New York Trump easily won the popular vote. Utah would not even be a blip in vote count if we combine with those two states.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 3:39 p.m.

    For guidance on this issue, the 17th amendment, ratified in 1913, altered the way we elect senators.

    One hundred years later, do you think the senate is a body of quality individuals? How do you think selection by state legislatures would have impacted the make up of that body?

  • Jefferson, Thomas Bluffdale, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 3:25 p.m.

    Oh brother, I guess public ed has failed once again. The proposal is ignorance personified. The founders knew the concept ever bit as well as we think and better. They understood what they were doing. The new proposal is just unbelievable. Under that concept there really would be no reason for small states to even vote for president. Just let the biggies decide it and say we give away our constitutional right. Leave it alone. Better still get educated on what we truly have and why.

  • TKB Provo, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 2:34 p.m.

    As noted in the political process we must preserve the relevance of smaller states. In addition it is common knowledge via numerous surveys and studies that residents of large cities tend to become more liberal in their political philosophy. The concept of hearth and home in family life as primary sources of a child's education and preparation for life are supplanted by group think where collective and amoral ideology is celebrated and individual self sufficiency, personal morality and independence is minimized or even condemned.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 2:08 p.m.

    Of course not. That takes away the voice of smaller states. However, the candidate with a plurality (often not even a majority) of votes gets all the electoral votes. That is wrong too. As a democrat in Utah, my vote for national and state candidates is worthless. The electoral vote should be divided up. Utah has 6 electoral votes. A candidate should get one electoral vote for every approximately 15% of the popular vote. Only 2 states divide up their electoral votes. On the state level, gerrymandering should be eliminated (hopefully the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional in a pending case). Voting districts should be drawn up by an independent, nonpartisan commission. That is done in Arizona. More liberal Salt Lake City is virtually disenfranchised by divided it into 3 of the districts. About 35% in Utah vote democrat, yet democrats only make up 16% of the state legislature. At 35%, at least 2 of our national congressional delegation of 6 should be democrats. There are none. Until we correct these flaws in our national and state systems, we have no right to call ourselves a truly representative democracy (or republic, if you insist calling it that).

  • Bunnie Keen Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 2:08 p.m.

    In 2004, if John Kerry had won 59,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won the Electoral College even though George Bush won the popular vote by 3 million. In 2001, a county-by-county study by the Oklahoma Weather Lab University of Oklahoma, indicated sunnier weather would have given Florida to Al Gore. The current system is a crapshoot, Russian roulette; it’s just that up to now, one party has been luckier than the other.

    Even with over a million ballots cast in 2016, Utah ranked 39th in voter turnout. Under a national popular vote, with every Utah voter feeling as relevant as every voter in Florida, imagine the Beehive State’s turnout. If you think it’s good that more people vote in presidential elections, support National Popular Vote. If you think it’s bad, support the status quo and keep more Utahns at home on Election Day instead of at the polls.

    National Popular Vote is election process, not politics. The candidate with the most votes wins - period. It’s not a revolutionary idea. It’s what happens in races for city council, mayor, state legislatures, governor and Congress. It only follows: the single national office we have, should be a single national vote.

  • RBC Cody, WY
    Nov. 19, 2017 2:05 p.m.

    If the election were to be decided on straight popular vote, it would make the small western states even more irrelevant that they already are. The purpose of the electoral college system was to give smaller states a bit more clout, and to keep a few highly populated states from dictating to everyone else. It would be a huge mistake to change such a time proven system. If it's not broken--don't fix it.

  • All American Herriman, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 1:50 p.m.

    The answer to this is simple: We are a republic, not a democracy. If we had a democracy, then the popular vote of the nation would be feasible. But in a republic, a representative government, the electoral college are the state's representatives and should vote as the people of the state instruct, not as the people of the nation instruct.

    Don't mess with the electoral collage as it is now set up!

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 1:39 p.m.

    Since it is up to each state to determine how electoral college members are appointed, I would like to see the Utah law changed so that the state's electoral votes are apportioned as much as possible in the same proportion as the popular vote in our state. That would not be a change in the US constitution. We already have that right and several states use it.

  • Dave Nash Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 1:33 p.m.

    Can you imagine allowing the entire country to vote for Utah's Senators and Congressmen? Can you imagine everyone in the country choosing every state's Senators and Congressmen? If you support a national popular vote for president, you might as well go all the way and have a national popular vote decide who is in congress, as well.

    Our representative government is the way everyone has a voice. A national popular vote for president puts the whole system out of whack, with one branch being chosen one way, and other branch being chosen another way.

    Does this representative from Ogden really get his feelings hurt because we are not traditionally a battleground state? It's beats the alternative.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 1:10 p.m.

    I would love to have my cake and eat it too: For large, liberal states like California and New York, I am all for the idea. Let them split their electoral votes instead of winner take all. But for small, conservative states like Utah, never

  • FelisConcolor Layton, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 12:57 p.m.

    It will be hilarious to watch the faces of the Left when Trump wins the popular vote in 2020.

    And for those who say it can't happen, prior to the 2004 election the Democrats were fond of saying that no Republican Presidential candidate had won the popular vote since 1988.

  • Surf is Up Miami, FL
    Nov. 19, 2017 12:56 p.m.

    The democrats have already packed the states with the largest number of delegates in attempts to corner the electoral college. On paper it is difficult for a republican to win it. Boohoo when they actually lose with a horrible candidate.

    So, when the electoral college fails them they always bring up the popular vote -- claiming that it should be pre eminent in elections.

    I say no. The electoral college is a disadvantage to conservatives already but at least it helps compartmentalize against all of the dead people and illegal aliens who manage to vote in each election (because requiring identifications from voters is somehow racist).

    It is easier for fraudulent votes to have an impact in a popular vote. So let's continue to let the EC serve as a bulwark against the cheaters; as imperfect as it is .

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 12:50 p.m.

    Every presidential election I vote, and consistently my vote goes into the trash, with all of the other votes of non-Republicans in Utah.

    Democracy? What a hoax!

  • oldgulph VILLANOVA, PA
    Nov. 19, 2017 12:11 p.m.

    Utah, voting 75% Republican in 2012, like 37 other states of all sizes that vote predictably, is usually ignored.

    UT generated a margin of 488,787 "wasted" votes for Romney, 385,000 for Bush in 2004.
    They didn't help their candidates in any way.

    Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits.

    In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from campaigns after the conventions. The 12 smallest states are totally ignored.

    The 25 smallest states voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

    Among the 13 lowest population states, the bill has been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

    Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

    With the current system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the U.S., for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!

  • oldgulph VILLANOVA, PA
    Nov. 19, 2017 11:55 a.m.

    The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

    Article II, Section 1
    “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."

    Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the bill, that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

    The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both GA(16 electoral votes) and MO(10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in AZ(11), AR(6), ME(4), MI(16), NV(6), NC(15), and OK(7), and both houses in CO(9) and NM(5).

  • oldgulph VILLANOVA, PA
    Nov. 19, 2017 11:48 a.m.

    A successful nationwide campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided states, such as OH and FL. In the 4 states that got over 2/3rds of all general-election activity in the 2012 election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

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

    With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, now, it makes no sense for a Dem to try and do that in VT or UT, or for a Rep to try it in UT or VT.

    TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural areas. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 11:09 a.m.

    Well that might prove interesting. But I would add that if this became the case, only tax payers should be allowed to vote, since they are the one's paying 'for the freight'
    Wonder how the vote would turn out in some of those blue states then?

  • Richie Saint George, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 10:42 a.m.

    Not no but absolutely NO.

  • Fullypresent Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 10:36 a.m.

    There shouldn't be a limited number of people deciding who is president of the United States. We should get rid of the electoral college and have a true vote of the people across the country. The people should decide who their president is going to be. Then, we live with what the majority of Americans decide.

    The biggest thing we need to do with elections is to get all of the money out of them. The Republican agenda with the massive tax cuts to the wealthy is really them answering for the millions of millions of dollars donated to them during the election process. It is time to pay back the favors the promised if they received political donations from them. True for the Democrats when they get elected. We have created a corrupt political system we need to change if we expect anything but corrupt outcomes.

  • Anaximander South Ogden, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 9:56 a.m.

    Give me the wisdom and foresight of the founding fathers every time over knee jerk reactions by distraught left wingers who simply can't get over the fact that they were losers in this last presidential election.

    This is an easy call. All states that have signed up for this nonsense are bastions of left wing ideology. No thank you to the Nth degree.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 9:02 a.m.

    When you think about it, though, we've an odd system. Depending on who you believe, somewhere between 39000 and 78000 voters in a few key states was all it took to change the outcome of the election.
    But the raw national margin was in favour of the democrats by something in the order of 2.87 million, insofar as it turns out massive voter fraud simply did not happen. The process, it seems, usurped the will of the majority of the American people.
    So, when we vote for the presidential candidates, are we states, or voters? If we're states, and the electoral college is in place to protect us, why did it fail so miserably this time? If it's just a rubber stamp process, would we be better off to more closely allocate the weight of the vote to the population? For example, allocate 1000 EC votes, one for each of 325,400 or so population. Utah would get 9, California 118. But, that's where more people live, and if we're going to stick with this idea, let's weigh the votes equally.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 9:03 a.m.

    Jeremy Peterson is not thinking straight. If Utah electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote, then a candidate doesn't have to think about Utah at all. Winning the heavily populated states gives them Utah for free.

    Stupid idea.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 19, 2017 8:46 a.m.

    And just how is the electoral college "genius" in todays world when 2 of the last three Presidents were elected despite the "people" saying no to them.

    How is it genius today when it gives three times as much weight to the vote of a cattle rancher in Wyo., than a nuclear physicist in LA?

    How is it genius now when it blatantly discriminates against people of color, and the young? All tend to live in metropolitan areas, and heavy population states.

    No, it's not genius anymore, it's absolutely divisive and one of the prime reasons for toxic politics today.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 8:43 a.m.

    The basic concept of the electoral college was to balance population and geography so big population states could not turn small population states into colonies.

    That has not changed,

    Eliminating the electoral college is a bad idea

  • Chad S Lorton, VA
    Nov. 19, 2017 8:33 a.m.

    This is one of the worst ideas in the history of ideas. Does this guy actually think that turning over Utah's electoral votes to the national winner would lead to INCREASED candidate participation in Utah? That is absurd on its face.

    What the states are trying to do is rewrite the Constitution without actually doing the work of rewriting the Constitution and I have a feeling that the effort would fail in the Supreme Court if it becomes successful and is legally challenged.

  • Freiheit Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 8:28 a.m.

    As the system now works, a plurality in just 11 states can elect the president. How's that for great?

  • bjutah American Fork, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 7:36 a.m.

    Absolutely No! Never! If you want insight into who is foisting this idea on our nation, just look at the map, all are very liberal left states. Utah's voice and other smaller states will not count more, only less, it will be thrown to the voice of the most populous liberal states. Unfortunately, this movement does not require a Constitutional ratification by 3/4 of the states because it was left to the states to decide for themselves how a state's electoral college should vote. This is a cleaver subversion of the intent of the electoral college to provide a voice for physically smaller, less populous states against the rule of larger, heavily populated states. The founding fathers did this to provide a measure of self-rule for people in smaller states. The parity is in the assignment of one electoral college vote for each congressperson ( both House and Senate) representing a state.

  • Thomas Paine South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 7:26 a.m.

    This compact is a form of collusion that circumvents the Constitution and disregards the purpose of the Electoral College. This will set up court battles and Congress will be able to reject electoral votes that violate the the individual state’s vote.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 7:18 a.m.

    Pretty dumb to think we want California and New York to end up running the country. We will surely become a socialist country like Venezuela and Cuba is short order.

  • Macfarren Dallas, TX
    Nov. 19, 2017 7:02 a.m.

    Why are we evening having this conversation? Oh that's right, because Hillary is still complaining that she lost.

    This proposed plan would be the perfect way to disenfranchinse (to borrow a term used by the left), all Utah voters.

    So if that is the intent, by all means, go right ahead.

  • Jared Crandall Riverton, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 6:59 a.m.

    One of the dumbest ideas I have heard in awhile. This is a way to ensure we become completely irrelevant in a national race. If this was implemented it would allow politicians to simply focus there efforts on states with the most population and ignore the needs here in Utah which may be very different. The founding fathers were very wise when they set up the ellectorial college. It's needed and more relevant now then it ever was. We must always protect it.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 6:40 a.m.

    Isn't it pathetic when people try too hard? It really strains logic.

  • dski HERRIMAN, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 6:06 a.m.

    Ha! Ha! Ha! Nice try! So, liberals want California and New York to control the country and forget about every one else. With some honesty and integrity, come out and say what you mean. The founders of the Constitution saw that way ahead of us and inserted the electoral votes to give smaller states a voice. Otherwise, the populous states will dominate everything inside and outside the country. I can’t believe this subject is even brought out for discussion. Now that popular votes is promoted, why not bring out an article emphasizing the importance of electoral votes?

  • tsobserver Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 5:46 a.m.

    This effort is unwise and will be the undoing of our Republic. The Constitution is a divinely inspired document. Giving up our state's collective franchise in a vain effort to gain fleeting attention and campaign dollars every four years is an incredibly foolish idea. I urge all state legislators to resist this idea with every means that can be devised.

  • Palmetto Bug Columbia, SC
    Nov. 19, 2017 5:45 a.m.

    There are certainly pros and cons of this system but I think the pros far out weigh the cons. Every vote would count so candidates couldn’t ignore anyone. The vast majority of states receive no attention whatsoever in presidential elections, Utah included. California is a large state but winning California wouldn’t come close to guaranteeing a candidate victory (and winning California might only collect 60% of votes, not 100% of electorates). Not to mention all the disenfranchised voters in California (and any other single-party dominated state, including Utah) who don’t belong to the state’s dominant political party. The small states that people seem to eager to protect are already completely ignored because their outcomes are all but certain. Let every vote count and candidates would be incentivized to pay attention to the flyover states. Turnout in every state would matter. Candidates couldn’t cherrypick battle ground states, of which the same 3-5 determine nearly every close election.

  • GrainOfSalt Draper, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 5:02 a.m.

    And you think Utah is irrelevant now? An agreement like this would only make Utah MORE irrelevant! A handful of large population states would determine the national outcome every time and Utah would become a laughingstock for falling for this idea, that somehow it would be relevant by following a national vote consensus. And what is our state population compared to California? Get serious!

  • Copybook Headings Draper, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 4:35 a.m.

    @majmajor - Layton, UT
    " ... All Federal power is derived from the States, and the people ..."

    Two very significant events in American history make this statement completely (and sadly) untrue.

    The first was the 17th amendment (direct election of Senators).

    The second was Roe v Wade. By finding 'emanations from penumbras' in the Constitution seven unelected Supreme Court justices gave the Federal government the power to invalidate any State law Washington D.C. doesn't like.

  • Nichol Draper West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 3:44 a.m.

    A compromise designed over 200 years ago to not allow large New York's population to dominate national politics worked to keep one corrupt candidate from winning our presidency and her corrupt cronies want to change the rules. If any small states agree to this, then we are the most inept people in the United States in over 200 years.

  • YouAreKidding Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 3:24 a.m.

    Did the representative who proposed this take the time to look at which states are members of the Compact? Liberal, progressive, left-leaning states. That's who. What a great idea! Let's agree to give the votes to a candidate we know doesn't represent Utah values rather than the candidate Utah actually voted for. DUMB. DUMB. DUMB.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 2:56 a.m.

    By the way, nobody cares about Utah in the current map. It's not competitive and even when we thought a unique set of circumstances would make it competitive Trump still won by 20. With a popular vote a Democrat has reason to visit Salt Lake City to try and get turnout, and a Republican has reason to visit Utah to try and run up the score. The states that lose attention with this adjustment would be swing states both large (FL OH PA) and small (IA NH NV).

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 2:49 a.m.

    One person, one vote gives every single person in every single state an equal voice.

  • logical Meridian, ID
    Nov. 19, 2017 2:38 a.m.

    If the comments here are a representative sample of Utah's feelings then we probably shouldn't but maybe we should post this question in New York and California before we decide?

  • Wldflwr Lehi, UT
    Nov. 19, 2017 12:37 a.m.

    And then there is the argument that whoever gets the most states wins!😉

  • Tumbleweed Centerville, UT
    Nov. 18, 2017 11:18 p.m.

    It's bad enough that conservative candidates for president start out in the hole by the total number of electoral votes in New York and California.

  • Fred T PHOENIX, AZ
    Nov. 18, 2017 10:21 p.m.

    No! Absolutely not.

    This would be like giving a football victory to the team with the most yards even though they didn't have the most points.

  • majmajor Layton, UT
    Nov. 18, 2017 10:14 p.m.

    Anyone else notice the map? They are all large population states. No small state would support this. Of course California, and New York what the election decided by popular votes...

    If something this idiotic was passed in Utah, California would have more say about Utah's land then Utah residents. The next Democratic president wouldn't even enter the mountain states to name the next "Bear's Ears."

    Ogden really has an issue with teaching US History, or simple math to have an elected official that has-no-clue, and says he doesn't know if "this compact would be a good thing."

  • Aerospace Pioneer Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 18, 2017 9:52 p.m.

    In a word, NO. If you want to fiddle with the Constitution, propose and promote an amendment. I can understand why some of the more populous states may want their voters to dictate the result, but provisions for an Electoral College were written into the Constitution to protect the interests of the small states. I believe they should stay in place.

  • Kristjhn Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 18, 2017 9:41 p.m.

    No. Why would we let California decide who we vote for. The Electoral College was a stroke of brilliance. Having each state cast their vote for the popular vote getter undermines the Electoral College.

  • majmajor Layton, UT
    Nov. 18, 2017 9:37 p.m.

    Should anyone in a small state keep asking such a stupid question... NO. The next thing these people will ask is for the number of US Senators in each state be based on population.

    Every state has its own interests, and goals. The Constitution was set up to balance the interests of the small states vs the more populated states. Uneducated people don't understand is that the United States is made up of 51 sovereign governments. The Federal Government was designed to be limited by the States, and balances the Federal Government's between the states' (sometimes competing) interests.

    All Federal power is derived from the States, and the people. This stupid idea would be contrary to the interests of Utah, or any other small state.

  • Sanefan Wellsville, UT
    Nov. 18, 2017 9:29 p.m.

    Only if Utah wants to become totally irrelevant as a State in the Presidential election.

  • brandypayson Payson, Utah
    Nov. 18, 2017 9:08 p.m.

    Joining a compact organized by large majority Democratic states insures that the Democratic nominee will always get elected. Smaller midwestern and western states will still be 'flyover' states with no real voice in a national election. The electoral college was put into effect to give another level to the election of president and ensure that our 2+ party system works as it was designed to work. Our government was set up as a republic with elected representatives who make the final decision. All the viable candidates who campaigned for president during this last election visited Utah and other small states. They all knew it was important to their campaigns to tell ALL the voters where they stood on the issues. What the parties need to do is insure that the nomination process is fair to all the candidates rather than being bought by the presumptive nominee.

  • jbarr North Ogden, UT
    Nov. 18, 2017 9:02 p.m.

    If that happened then very soon candidates would not even try to get Utah or other small population states. They wouldn’t matter at all. The big population states would decide every election. The electoral college is what makes every state matter in the elections.

  • Yuge Opportunity Here Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 18, 2017 8:44 p.m.

    Let's change the rules so we can win next time.

    Until, of course, that doesn't work. Then we'll pick another scheme so we can win.

    Living election rules, just like their living constitution. And otherwise intelligent people take them seriously. Go figure.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 18, 2017 8:33 p.m.

    Not only no, but heck no!

    This is a scheme by liberal Democrats who control the big cities to work around the clear Constitutional provisions regarding the electoral college, which was set up specifically to ensure that all states had a voice in election of the president and vice president.

    Given the rampant Democrat ability to rack up fraudulent votes for their candidates in the big urban areas (although they deny it) this scheme would only incentivize them to get even more crooked in their Chicago style voting scams.

    Every state which has backed this "compact" is a deep blue lefty state, where the Democrat machines in the urban areas guarantee wins at the state level, and now they want to impose that on the country as a whole.
    No, no, no, never!