4 ms·

There’s a lot of reasons for it on the movements official site: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/wri

• 40four 7y ago
  Thanks, I'll check it out. This is the group from the article? I admittedly didn't read it because of the paywal. Just lurking in the comments :)
• 40four 7y ago
  So after looking it over, the idea is to eliminate get rid of the 'winner take all' system in the participating states. Seems fine to me. It's definitely hard to argue for winner takes all electoral votes. I'm not really a history guy, but I wonder why states decided to move in that direction to begin with? Guess I'll have to look into it. What I don't get is if there are this many states trying to push this idea, why do they need a bill like this to do it. Why don't those states just take it upon themselves to change their laws individually. What's stopping them right now? Moreover, it seems one of the main points is that the current system causes candidates to only focus their campaign in a few battleground states. I'm struggling to see how the National Popular Vote system would change this. Maybe it would break up the current pattern, if so, I have a feeling another similar pattern would emerge. The battlegrounds would just shift. For example, it might just redistribute the candidates focus to the greater metro areas where 2/3 of the population lives, and republican/ democrat distributions are more even (according to the site). If the city centers are strongly democrats, and rural strongly republican, the I imagine the same problem emerging since those areas are a 'done deal'. Why would the candidates spend any resources there is there is no chance of swaying them?