What if states earned their Electoral College votes based on turnout?

I don't want 100% turnout either, but for an entirely different reason. It would be a big waste of time! Why get 100% of the US's 300+ million people to take an afternoon out of their lives when we could get nearly the same accuracy if we only had 1% of that turn out to vote (keeping the demographics the same, ideally). The margin for error is miniscule with 3 million voters for 4-5 candidates, just as it is miniscule with 300 million. And the productivity gains (including increased leisure time as productive) would be huge.

>> There's not a single policy or position...

That's exactly my point. I'm not the one suggesting it, I'm responding to it.

>> The voter suppression schemes are transparent...

Yes, I even stated that. My point is that I'm not willing to label half the country as to be a part of it. In fact, I'm willing to blame people among the Democrat party of doing much the same. I just don't say it's official Democrat policy so that I'm not blaming the entire group.

>> literacy tests

Which tests? Those run by Republican or Democrat members?

>> I'm not even sure how much we disagree...

On the face of it, I don't think we do.

>> But the USA has a long and storied history of screwing over black people and their civil rights...

Which I said, US history is rife with voter fraud or disenfranchisement, whichever term you prefer. I'm not sure where you're going with all this, since it seems you are agreeing with me. Am I misunderstanding?

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The national popular vote winner would receive all of the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored). In 2012, the whole state was ignored. 77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant. In 2012, the whole state was ignored. 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election

With National Popular Vote, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 7 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80%+ of the country that is currently conceded months in advance by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Count again. Of the 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Wow, I had no idea that some people viewed that term as negative. I had to look it up. I guess I picked it up while reading history from when the term wasn't considered negative.

I always thought Democrat Party and the Democratic Party went together depending on usage plus the preference of the person speaking. I mean, after all, they are called Democrats so it would seem to me that Democrat Party would be used. Methinks people are just complaining to be complaining.

Interesting. Today, I learned something. Anyway, I don't think I'll shall stop using the term. Thanks for the input.