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!
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.
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 togive 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
@Square PegIf 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@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...)
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.
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.
NO! Why would any one want to give away ones representation. The electoral
college allow small states the right to be counted.
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.
What is wrong with Utah's votes going toward the person who Utahns vote
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?
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
Sorry, but Utah doesn't want to vote itself into irrelevance.
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.
@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.
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
@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?
This is a terrible idea. Why would we let Southern California, New York City,
and Chicago control our elections.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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,
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.
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 .
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!
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!
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).
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.
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?
Not no but absolutely NO.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
As the system now works, a plurality in just 11 states can elect the president.
How's that for great?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Isn't it pathetic when people try too hard? It really strains logic.
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?
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.
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.
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!
@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
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.
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.
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).
One person, one vote gives every single person in every single state an equal
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?
And then there is the argument that whoever gets the most states wins!😉
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Only if Utah wants to become totally irrelevant as a State in the Presidential
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
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.
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.
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!