Why would registered voters choose to not vote? According to a poll, 25 percent of respondents said it was a “dislike of the candidates or campaign issues.” 15 percent said it was because of “a lack of interest or a feeling that their vote wouldn’t make a difference.”
Russians Used Facebook To Turn Voters Off of Democracy in Purple States. The tactics demonstrate the unique vulnerabilities within our presidential election system regarding the “winner-take-all” method.
94 percent of Americans responded that they supported background checks for all gun buyers. How would they feel about guns that can avoid them entirely?
Only in the 21st century did densification and polarization produce a situation in which each of the two major parties' candidates chose not to compete in a large number of states conceded to the rival.
A state may not advantage its citizens as against citizens of other states as a general rule. For example, it cannot give its citizens greater access to public forums for assembly.
The Constitution gives citizens in small states more electors per voter than citizens in large states. But is it right for a state to exacerbate that extra power by adopting a winner-take-all rule for choosing electors? Such a rule enables voters composing a mere plurality to name all the states’ electors in the Electoral College.
The right to assemble includes the right to move to a state that upholds and supports the political and policy preferences of any citizen. For example, a citizen may choose to live with others who are willing to pay higher taxes in return for more funding for public schools, public transportation, or other public benefits. However, by not granting citizens the right to vote with equal weight for president, a state inhibits the right to assemble with like-minded people in a community.
To illustrate, in 2016, under the current system, a citizen who prefers Trump over Clinton lost weight in voting by moving from Texas to California, or a Clinton-preferring citizen lost weight in voting by moving from California to Texas. This loss of equal weight is not a result of any operation of the Constitution’s Electoral College system: it occurs because states adopt a winner-take-all-rule instead of pledging their electors to choose the winner of the national popular vote or, as second order solution, allocating their electors proportionally like Nebraska and Maine.
A state could not deny its citizens the right to speak to everyone in the country and to assemble with other states’ citizens. It should not deny its citizens the right to have all their votes tallied with the votes of others.
In a national popular vote, the President would have had to deal with the issue of unfair trade practices by China in a manner that avoided negative repercussions affecting voters across the country.
In a national popular vote, presidents would have to consider what the majority of voters want, including one who need fair trade policies.
A national popular vote would make industries like farming in current swing states less vulnerable targets in a trade war.
This November, Michigan, Missouri, Colorado and Utah are expected to have measures on their ballots to curb gerrymandering of congressional districts.
Regardless of party, Americans believe the person who wins the most votes nationwide should become president, and they're willing to change the rules to make sure that happens.
A state abridges the right to vote when it denies a citizen the right to have his/her vote counted with equal weight relative to the citizens of other states.
The Constitution does not permits states to deny citizens the right to vote directly or indirectly for President.
The Constitution gives the States enormous power over the President’s election. The unwillingness of States to even consider other ways to elect the President is a problem.
The idea of ‘consent of the governed’ is so magnetic that even undemocratic countries thirst for the confirmation that it provides.
To make the American democracy work as it should, it is necessary to guarantee that both parties' nominees must seek to pursue the preferences of most people.
No, unlike MLB All-Star fan voting, we have a “one person, one vote” rule for electing the president. That’s obviously more fair! But take a closer look: also unlike MLB All-Star voting, not all votes for president tend to count equally. That’s very obviously worse.
Something you may not know: Harvard Law Professor and former presidential candidate Lawrence Lessig is suing the state of California. His argument? The state disenfranchised Republican voters in the 2016 general election because their votes did not count under the winner-take-all system.
