So I am looking for any opinions regarding legislation about "Popular Vote" and exclusively this topic with the exemption of all other topics.  Specifically any advantages or disadvantages one sees in regards to a State allocating all their electoral votes to the candidate with the most overall national votes.

 Right now it is a situation of tallying the votes in one State and then allocating the Electoral votes towards the candidate that received the most votes in that State.

 The change would be allocating the Electoral votes in one State to the candidate that received the most votes in the overall national tally.


 Without presenting data of hundreds of pages of material that nobody here will read I can present the two most common arguments that I have seen (these are exclusive to my observation and not to be considered factually confirmed "most common" by data driven, researched and reviewed information):

 No on the National tally because it gives State votes to what everyone else voted for instead of what constituents in that State want.  It is a workaround to amending the US Constitution.  


 Yes for the change as it reduces the overall impact and focus on "swing" states, and it prevents the need to amend the US Constitution.

I vote NO.

It is not the intent of the original compromise to provide representatives for the people of each state and also for each state.

I also think the population has expanded far beyond the compromise and has diluted the weight of the state vote and should be rebalanced.

Eegore wrote on 10/28/20 at 08:12:41:

...  Right now it is a situation of tallying the votes in one State and then allocating the Electoral votes towards the candidate that received the most votes in that State. ...

That is the way it is in 48 States.  Not all.
Each State can choose how to do it.

To make it the way 48 States deal with their Electorates,
and give the entire State, to the way of a popular recorded National vote,
is nothing more that usurping the Constitution, and a fast path to Socialism.  

Electoral votes were made on the believes, that the people in the Country are just dumb bumpkins, and the people in the city are the smart ones, so they should be the ones to decide.
THAT ‘IDEA’, while once, could have been, in certain areas, possibly true,
is no longer true.

Electoral Collage Voting System.
Each District in a state has 1 vote.
The entire State has 2 votes.
In 48 States, if the State votes one way, All the votes of All the Districts will be recorded the same way.

Example, Mn has 8, ‘Districts’, where the vote in each District is recorded.
in 2016; 5 districts voted R, 3 districts voted D, the State voted D
The 3 districts consisted of the the most densely populated areas in Minn.
So Minn Electoral vote was 5 for Trump, and 5 for Clinton.
Because the population of 3 of the very densely Districts, was a bit more than votes of the 5 Districts, the entire State went Clinton.
Effectively nullifying the majority of people, in 5 Districts in Minn.

Minn should have been 5 Electoral Votes for Trump and 5 for Clinton.

AS CALF SHOULD HAVE BEEN 20 FOR TRUMP AND 35 FOR CLINTON.

Say the States of N.D. S.D. ID, etc.. voted for one party,
and the States like FL, CA, NY, etc, voted for another.
Now, in ENTIRE States, the Vote just don’t matter !

Used to be, ‘just,’ the vote of, entire Districts, didn’t matter.

Throwing AWAY, the Majority of the  Entire population, of a State’s Vote.
Begs the question of,
WHY is that State Paying a Tax,
and Not having any Representation !

...a State allocating all their electoral votes to the candidate with the most overall national votes...

    NO

eau de sauvage wrote on 10/28/20 at 13:19:48:


Oh geez......

Funny,.. we spread democracy around the globe but resist it here.

In 48 States, if the State votes one way, All the votes of All the Districts will be recorded the same way.

Certainly Barr will be working out if it's possible to work around this in a close vote, by a unilateral legislative order. It's not constitutionally fixed. The US has only just found out how fragile their brand of democracy really is.