Myth #1: Big cities, such as Los Angeles, would certainly manage a nationwide popular vote for President.


Los Angeles does not manage the outcome of statewide elections in California; so it’s hardly in a place to conquer a nationwide election.The truth that LA does not regulate the outcome of statewide elections in its own state is shown by the fact that Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilchild, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were elected in current years without winning Los Angeles.

The “substantial city” myth might stem from the misconception that big cities are bigger than they actually are, and that massive cities account for a higher fractivity of the nation’s populace than they actually perform.

You are watching: Why is it that in most of the world, cities have higher turnouts than rural areas?

In truth, 85% of the US population stays in cities through a population of fewer than 365,000 (the populace of Arlington, Texas, the nation’s 50th biggest city).

The 100 best cities have 59,849,899 human being, and also the rural locations have 59,492,267 people; and also they are not every one of one party!

Myth #2:Maine, through only 4 electdental votes, would certainly be disadvantaged by the National Popular Vote.


The small claims (the 13 states through only 3 or four electoral votes) are the most disadtagedvan and ignored group of says under the existing state-by-state winner-take-all strategy of awarding electoral votes; NOT bereason of their low populace, yet bereason they are not carefully separated battleground claims. Maine has never before been a battleground state! Candidates spend their time and also money in the says that are carefully split, not the ones that are plainly or likely to majority vote for one party over the other based on polls and also background.

In 2016, 2/3rds of the campaign events were in simply 6 states; 94% were in simply 12 swing states. Maine was not among them (simply as it wasn’t in 2012 or 2008)!

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, a vote for President in Wyoming is equal to a vote in California. Both are politically irappropriate because California is reliably Democratic and Wyoming is reliably Republideserve to. Republicans in California and Democrats in Wyoming (and Independents and Greens) actors votes that just don’t issue.

Maine has actually state-wide winner-take-all for 2 of its 4 Electdental College votes; and also each of the 2 congressional districts has its own winner-takes-all mechanism for 1 of the staying 2 votes. This makes irrelevant the votes of those who didn’t vote for the state or district winner. With the National Popular Vote, all votes will be counted in a national tally to recognize the winner. Eextremely vote will count.

When eextremely vote actors will be counted toward the national (not just the state) tally, candidays will work for eexceptionally vote in the state.

Myth #3:The Electdental College would be abolished by the National Popular Vote compact.


The National Popular Vote bill is state legislation—not a federal constitutional amendment. Therefore, it would certainly not (and also indeed might not) readjust the structure of the Electoral College as specified in the UNITED STATE Constitution.

Instead, the National Popular Vote bill would adjust the approach whereby the claims award their electoral votes in the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill provides the Constitution’s integrated state-based power for transforming the strategy of awarding electdental votes namely, section 1 of Post II of the U.S. Constitution:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof might straight, a Number of Electors….”<28>

The “manner” of appointment of presidential electors is stated by clause 3 of Post III of the National Popular Vote compact.

The presidential elector certifying main of each member state shall certify the appointment in that official’s very own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national famous vote winner.”Since the compact just takes result as soon as enacted by claims possessing a bulk of the electdental votes (i.e., 270 of 538), the compact guarantees that presidential electors supporting the “national renowned vote winner” will certainly have actually enough votes to select the President.

The National Popular Vote compact would not abolish the Electoral College. Instead, it would redevelop the Electoral College so that it shows the option of the voters in all 50 says and also the District of Columbia.

Under the National Popular Vote plan, the says would certainly retain their exclusive and plenary power to choose the approach of awarding their electoral votes, including the option to make other alters later.

Footnotes<28> UNITED STATE Constitution. Blog post II, area 1, clausage 2.

Myth #4:The framers created the Electdental College to defend the small claims.


The framers created the Senate to encertain equal representation for each state, regardless of population. Hence, Delconscious and California both have actually 2 senators. The number of Housage seats is dependent upon the state’s population. “A straight election for president did not sit well via most delegates from the slave claims, which had huge populations however far fewer eligible voters. They gravitated towards the electoral college as a deteriorate bereason it was based on population. The convention had actually agreed to count each servant as three-fifths of a perboy for the objective of calculating each state’s allotment of seats in Congress. For Virginia, which had actually the biggest population among the original 13 claims, that expected more clout in choosing the president.” (George C. Edwards, III, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America)

So, the servant claims not only had even more clout in the Electoral College because of their enslaved populace, but more seats in the House of Representatives.

Myth #5:Maine will provide up an benefit under NPV, because our Electoral College vote to populace ratio is high.


Maine gets no advantage under NPV, even though our populace to Electdental College votes proportion is high.

We regularly hear that little claims have actually an benefit, simply as this question posits that Maine would certainly be offering up some advantage bereason we have actually the electdental college vote to population proportion is high.

What are those advantages? It will be so beneficial to ask that question as soon as someone says this worry. Specifically, what are they?

We perform recognize that Maine is mostly ignored in presidential projects, together with 40 or so other says that are decidedly Red or decidedly Blue. By looking at specific benefits that swing says get, probably we have the right to much better understand also whether or not Maine really does have actually any type of benefit currently.

Campaign visits: Swing states obtain even more project visits than safe claims. Twelve carefully split “battleground claims via 94,625,693 civilization received basically all (96%) of the general-election campaign occasions (627 of 652 events) in 2016 and also 2012. Maine had actually no campaign visits in 2012, and also 3 in 2016. Florida had actually 71 in 2016 and 40 in 2016.

Tbelow are 10 various other states will a comparable (or higher) population to EC ratio; the majority had actually no campaign visits in the last two election cycles; and also they are all reliably Red or reliably Blue claims. But, New Hampshire (population 1,321,445 compared to Maine’s 1,333,074) had 12 visits in 2008 (Maine—0), 13 in 2012 (Maine—0) and also 21 in 2016 (Maine—3). New Hampshire was closely split in each of those 3 elections. Maine is basically ignored in the general election project (together with all those various other little states with high populace to EC ratio).

Money and Policy influence: More money and preferential plan therapy are consistently and historically directed at swing says both prior to and also throughout a basic election. Campaigning and declaring carry countless dollars right into a swing state. In 2016, 99% of campaign spending remained in battleground says. Maine was (again) not among them.

Many claims execute watch an increase in federal dollars in the 2 years before a presidential election, yet swing says on average obtain as much as 8% more in federal funds than perform safe states. In 2008, for example, four pivotal swing says – Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and also Pennsylvania – got even more than $1 billion in additional give spfinishing, by virtue of being swing says.

A tiny example of that largess in 2004: Just weeks prior to a very competitive presidential election, $300 million in federal different power grants were awarded to five swing states: Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and also Florida.Even disaster relief is skewed towards swing says. Studies have establimelted that in between 1981 and also 2004, states that were very politically competitive were twice as likely to gain presidential disaster declarations than noncompetitive says.

What benefit does Maine receive from the current method?

Myth #6:It will be too hard to conduct a nationwide recount in a really close election.


Fairvote’s 2007 survey of 7,645 statewide elections from 1980 to 2006 determined that statewide elections caused a recount when in eextremely 332 elections (23 out of 7,645).

Applied to nationwide presidential elections, this number would certainly mean we can have to conduct a nationwide presidential election recount when every 1,328 years.

Recounts occur in the says with close outcomes, not nationally or in states that were not close.

The only continuing to be action forced by the National Popular Vote bill is to add up the vote totals from all 50 says and the District of Columbia; no new counting procedures are forced. States proceed to manage their elections and also the the vote count. More essentially, in the 21st century, the United States has no excusage for conducting elections that cannot be recounted.

Without a doubt, big populace states choose The golden state and also Texas execute not shy amethod from statewide well-known elections out of fear of running recounts. And, Congress has actually the authority to establish requirements for recounts in the highly unmost likely occasion one were required (and should).

Even via a solitary pool of practically 130,000,000 votes, it is possible that the nationwide famous vote could be exceptionally cshed in some future presidential election (say, a couple of hundred votes or perhaps a few thousand also votes; Thirty-eight to forty says are decidely red or decidedly blue, and also not remotely close). In that event, the initial vote count and also the recount would certainly be taken on in the very same method as they are currently handled; that is, under generally serviceable laws that govern all elections.

As UNITED STATE Senator David Durenberger (R-Minnesota) said in the Senate in 1979: “Tright here is no reason to doubt the ability of the States and localities to control a recount, and also nopoint to suggest that a candiday would frivolously incur the expense of requesting one. And even if this were not the instance, the potential risk in choosing a President rejected by a bulk of the voters much outweighs the potential inconvenience in administering a recount.”

Myth #7:National Popular Vote decreases turnout.


It is no mystery why voter turnout is higher in battleground says compared to the remainder of the nation. A 2005 Broomajesties Institution report entitled Thinking About Political Polarization pointed out: “The electoral college can depress voter participation in a lot of the country. Overall, the percent of voters that participated in last fall’s election was nearly 5 percent better than the turnout in 2000. Yet, most of the rise was restricted to the battleground claims. Since the electoral college has actually properly narrowed elections choose the last one to a quadrennial challenge for the votes of a reasonably small number of states, civilization in other places are most likely to feel that their votes don’t matter.”

In 2012, USA Today reported the complying with around that year’s election: “Swing-state voters are a little even more enthusiastic around voting this year than those living somewhere else, perhaps mirroring the attention they’re given in TV ads and candidate visits. Nearly fifty percent of those in battleground says are very or extremely enthusiastic about voting for president this year."

Numerous experts have oboffered that voter turnout in spectator states is adversely influenced bereason voters of both parties in such says realize that their votes perform not issue in presidential elections.

Tright here is nothing brand-new around the reality that voter turnout is greater in very closely split battleground says. Without a doubt, it is direct consequence of the state-by-state winner-take-all strategy of awarding electoral votes.

Discussing voter turnout in the 1824 presidential election, chronicler Donald Ratcliffe wrote:“The overall level of turnout in the election was low. ... The factor was that in most says, the outcome in the was currently reasonably clear, and also voting did not seem a priority."

"Only half a dozen says experienced a genuine famous contest: in the Old Northwest (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois), in New Jersey and also Maryland, and in North Carolina. In these states, turnout in the presidential election climbed to over 40 percent, compared with less than 24 percent in the ten other claims that held a popular election.”

In America Goes to the Polls: A Report on Voter Turnout in the 2008 Election, the Nonprofit Voter Engagement Netoccupational found that in 2008: “Voter turnout in the 15 battleground claims averaged salso points better than in the 35 non-battleground states.” Concerning the 2004 election, Daniel E. Bergan reported in Public Opinion Quarterly that“Battleground claims had turnout prices that are five portion points greater than those of non-battleground says.”

The Committee for the Study of the Amerideserve to Electorate reported, “Turnout in battleground says raised by 6.3 portion points, while turnout in the other claims (and the District of Columbia) boosted by just 3.8 portion points.”

Myth #8:This is the method the founders wanted it to be.


Nothing about our current electdental mechanism is favor whatthe Founders envisioned. The Founders wanted the legislature to select electors, or candidates, who would certainly be the "most enlightened and respectable citizens." Tright here would be noinput from the human being, or citizens.

But by 1836, all the says were making use of a statewide“winner take all” device to select their electors, a system never supported or envisioned by the founders. Instead of being a deliberative body, the Electdental Collegein practicewas (and also is) created of presidential electors that voted in lockstep to rubber stamp the choices that were made by the nominating caucuses of the political parties. The Starting Fathers did not style nor anticipate—a lot less favor—the most salient attribute of our nation’s present-day system of electing the President, namely state winner-take-all statutes (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electdental votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state).

The Establishing Fathers never before intfinished that all of a state’s presidential electors would mindlessly vote, in lockaction, for the candidate nominated by an extra-constitutional meeting (a political party’s nominating caucus or convention).

In the arguments of the Constitutional Convention and also in the Federalist Papers, tright here is no cite of the winner-take-all method of awarding electdental votes. When the Founding Fathers went back to their says in 1789 to organize the nation’s initially presidential election, only 3 state legislatures decided to employ the winner-take-all strategy. Each of these three states repealed it by 1800.

Instead, the Establishing Fathers envisioned an Electoral College composed of “wise men” that would act as a deliberative body and also exercise independent and also detached judgment regarding the ideal perboy to serve as President.

As John Jay (the presumed writer of Federalist No. 64) wrote in 1788:“As the pick assemblies for selecting the President … will certainly in basic be created of the most enlightened and also respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and also their votes will certainly be directed to those men just who have end up being the many distinguished by their abilities and also virtues.”

As Alexander Hamilton (the presumed author of Federalist No. 68) wrote in 1788:“he immediate election have to be made by men a lot of capable of analyzing the characteristics adapted to the terminal, and also acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and also to a wise combination of all the reasons and also inducements which were appropriate to govern their alternative. A little variety of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will certainly be most likely to possess the information and also discernment requiwebsite to such complex investigations.”

In this regard, the Electdental College was patterned after ecclesiastical and royal elections. For example, the College of Cardinals in the Romale Catholic Church constitutes the world’s oldest and longest-running electdental college. Cardinals (through lifetime appointments) delibeprice to select the Pope. The Holy Romale Emperor was chosen by a comparable little and also distinguimelted team of “electors.” In many type of kingdoms in Europe, a small group of “electors” would certainly, upon the death of the king, pick the person best suited to be king from a pool consisting of certain members of the royal household or the aristocracy.

If Americans want to choose a president the means the Founders envisioned, we’d must offer up the statewide famous vote, and also go back to the days when the legislature schosen the Electors without input from the civilization. Let’s not!

Myth #9:The state-by-state winner-take-all dominance stays clear of tyranny of the majority.


Winner-take-all statutes permit a mere plurality of voters in each state to control 100% of a state’s electdental vote, thereby extinguishing the voice of the remainder of the state’s voters. The state-by-state winner-take-all ascendancy does not prevent a “tyranny of the majority” but instead is an example of it. As Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said in 1824, “This is a situation of votes taken ameans, included to those of the majority, and also given to a perchild to whom the minority is opposed.”

It is impossible to discern any kind of specific threat of “tyranny of the majority” that was posed by the first-place candidates in the 5 elections in which the Electdental College chosen the second-location candidate to the Presidency (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016). Under the Amerihave the right to device of government, protection against a “tyranny of the majority” originates from certain protections of individual civil liberties contained in the original Constitution and also the Bill of Rights; the “checks and balances” gave by splitting federal government into 3 branches (legislative, executive, and judicial); the existence of an independent judiciary; and the fact that the USA is a “compound republic” in which governmental power is separated between 2 distinct levels of government state and nationwide.

Myth 10:A nationwide renowned vote would certainly be mob ascendancy.


This myth reportedly originates from the faiattract (by some) to realize that the Amerihave the right to world actors votes for President in 100% of the says, and also that they have done so in 100% of the claims given that the 1880 election (the last time a state legislature, fairly than voters, made a decision electors).In instance anyone thinks it is proper to characterize the Amerihave the right to electoprice as a “mob,” it is currently long-settled political fact that the “mob” rules in Amerihave the right to presidential elections.

The alternative presented by the National Popular Vote is not whether the “mob” is going to control presidential elections, however whether the mob’s votes are going to be tallied on a state-by-state basis versus a nationwide basis.

The National Popular Vote bill is concerned via the family member political prominence of famous votes cast in various states for presidential electors. The currently prevailing winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding every one of a state’s electdental votes to the candiday who receives the the majority of popular votes in a state) renders votes unequal from state to state. Under the existing device, presidential candidays concentrate their attention on voters in a tiny handful of carefully separated battleground states, while ignoring voters in all the various other claims.

The National Popular Vote arrangement would certainly attend to the shortcomings of the current device by making every vote equally essential in eextremely state in eexceptionally presidential election.

Hence, the concern presented by the National Popular Vote proposal is not whether the “mob” will vote for President, however whether the “mobs” in particular very closely divided battleground states should be more vital than the “mobs” in the staying says.

Myth 11:The golden state and New York will conquer the election.


Not true! Infact, the "winner take all"approach distorts the weight of voters in all states, including the massive says favor New York and The golden state, silencing the votes of the minority while magnifying the votes of the majority winner.

In 2016, the Democratic candidate won both NY and CA for a total of 89 Electoral votes. Winner take all expected that the Republican candiday won 0% of the 538 Electoral votes. Winner take all supposed that the Democratic candiday won 16.5% of the 538 electdental votes.

139 million human being voted for president in 2016. In California, the Democrat won 7.3 million and also the Republideserve to won 3.9 million votes. In New York, Democrats won 4.1 million vs 2.6 million votes. Had the president been chosen by national renowned vote, the votes for the Democrat would have actually been 6.3% of the national popular vote, and also the votes for the Republihave the right to would have actually been 4.7%of the national famous vote.

See more: Why Do Birch Trees Have Black Streaks, On Their Trunk

The National Popular Vote renders eexceptionally vote actors for each candiday equal, showing each candidate’s true percentage of actors votes versus. No more 0%s.