Thompson, briefly a presidential candidate in 2008, was named national co-champion of the National Popular Vote campaign at a news conference in Washington, D.C.
Thompson told The Tennessean that the country cannot “run the risk of having a president who is handicapped by not having won the most popular votes.”
Proponents of the idea say the current system, in which the winner of a state earns all the electoral votes, means that a few states decide who is president and other states, including Tennessee, are ignored.
I’m too lazy and unimaginative offer any new opinions against this. So, I’ll repost in summary what I’ve already said on the matter.
It ensures all people, “common” or otherwise, no matter in which state they lived, would have an equal chance in deciding who the president should be. The large states would of course have their say, but under the Electoral College system, smaller states likewise would be protected by being guaranteed three electoral votes no matter their size in population.
Our winner take all system in 48 states (Maine and Nebraska are the exception as each do proportional awarding) makes it possible for a candidate to win the needed 270 electoral votes without even winning the majority of the popular vote. It has happened in 2000, 1888, 1876, and almost happened in 1960. If there is another case then I’ve forgotten.
At any rate, consider that a candidate can win the ten largest states in the union and he or she will only be 14 short of the presidency. That seems hardly fair to smaller states such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont,etc. That is why they tend to be over-represented in the Electoral System compared to their population. Should the system be done away with, and smaller states were all but forgotten and unrepresented, then, in which case, a vast majority of voters and their votes really “wouldn’t” count.
There is no doubt that a lot of Americans would like to see the EC abolished. However, think of the results and the unforeseen consequences. For instance, if we relied on a national popular vote only, there would have to be a runoff if neither candidate received a clear majority. This is because a popular vote would encourage many — any and all — third parties to pick up votes. So America would have to stomach an Al Sharpton party, the New Black Panther Party, the Ku Klux Klan Party, Southern Nationalists parties, urban grievance parties, militant and secessionist parties, etc. Who knows, if circumstance were poor enough, it could resemble the Weimar Republic.
All of these parties considering their degree of popularity would be in position to negotiate with the two major parties over favors and positions in government in exchange for support. American presidential politics would like a circus, or, worse, like Italy or France.
- New “co-champion” of National Popular Vote movement is … Fred Thompson? (hotair.com)
- Vermont Will Become Seventh State to Adopt National Popular Vote (elections.firedoglake.com)
- Look Who’s Working Against the Electoral College (dakotavoice.com)
- How to lose the republic (sfgate.com)