Yesterday it was reported that Romney leads Obama 51-43% in 15 swing states.  My travels around the U.S. this year brought me into contact with indicators that are consistent with those figures.

Obama is in for a tough struggle. He & his advisors haven't managed the hope & change elements very well at all. It's apparent those were just clever slogans and branding. Obama defaulted to Bush tactics in dealing with the Depression of 2008-20??.

Pelosi & Reid haven't been much help either. The "Obamacare" legislation and aftermath is a prime example.

Americans feel as though they've lost their car in the parking lot. They're about to take a ride with the first Willard that comes along offering a lift. There's a reason why hitch-hiking is dangerous.

Assets offshore raise Romney wealth questions
Associated Press - Wed, 4th Jul 2012 02:51 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/assets-offshore-raise-romney-wealth-questions-145151617.html

Don't see that NPV ever happening. Even if the necessary number of states signed up it wouldn't last long. What would happen in a state that voted for one candidate whose electoral college votes went to the other candiadate because that candidate won the national popular vote? There would be real anger. We will have the current system for a a long time to come.

It really needs a constitutional amendment, not a workaround. The current proposal, if it ever gets enough states to sign on, would be tied up in the courts of various states, and maybe federal court as well, for many years.

I'm not convinced that the Electoral College set up currently in the Constitution is "broke", nor that it needs "fixing".

I am sure that direct election by nationwide popular vote is "A BAD IDEA".

If there is some "tinkering" needed with the current EC system, the one which makes sense is to award an electoral vote to the candidate who takes a majority (or plurality in 3 or more party elections)of the votes cast in each US House District. IUsing Oregon as the example, that would account for / equate to 5 of the current seven Electoral College assigned to the Oregon.

Award two additional Electoral College votes to the candidate who obtains the majority / plurality of the popular vote within each state. The other two EC votes would account for / equate to the other two EC votes assigned to Oregon.

Such a system would force candidates to pay attention all statesto and campaign nationwide, and avoid the potential that a very narrowly focused campaign in the densely populated "mega states" could result in a very narrowly supported President.

YMMV.

Nonny
Two states Maine and Nebraska already use that system. The states can allocate their electoral votes any way they wish as far as I know. Only way to get rid of the the EC would be through constitutional amendment so you'd need two thirds of House and Senate and three quarters of the states to approve.That would be tough considering the number of small population states that would be losers if that happened such as Alaska Montana Wyoming etc. At least13 would be losers so not likely to happen.

All we know for sure here in Nevada, is that we will have several more visits from Mitt Romney and Barack Obama before the start of November.
And it's no big secret that strong blue and red states will see few visits from either candidate or much TV and radio advertising. The big money is being spent in states like Nevada, where about every third TV ad is political - and has been since mid-May.

The states can allocate their electoral votes any way they wish as far as I know.

Well, think about the state constitutional aspects of this. Here in Oregon, it's unconstitutional in many circumstances for the legislature to delegate its lawmaking authority. To delegate that authority to votes taken in other states is just begging for a lawsuit. But of course, the courts won't decide such a suit until it actually matters. It could be Bush v. Gore waiting to happen -- or even worse, because there could be dozens of state courts involved.

I used to think popular vote was the way to go and thought EC was outdated. After watching politics and voting for years I've concluded our fore fathers were brilliant in setting up the EC.

Take OR as an example, we elect our officials using popular vote. What's that do for us? It's left us with a small part of the state controlling the rest. If we had set up an EC in our state constitution, places outside of the Valley would actually have a say in what direction our state goes instead of being mostly ignored like they currently are.

I am sure that direct election by nationwide popular vote is "A BAD IDEA".

The idea was to save us from the tyranny of the majority, and it has been effective.

It should be noted that as designed by the framers, Representatives to the House were to be elected by popular vote, while members of the Senate were to be elected by the legislatures of the states.

That was changed within my lifetime; in my opinion, it was a change for the worse - it's one reason why we continue to have a New Yorker as an "Oregon Senator".

And Darrin, above, makes an excellent point: I've long advocated splitting the state into two: Portlandia (which would encompass the Valley down to Eugene, possibly further) and Oregon (all lands west of the Coast Range and east of the Cascades, joining at the southern border of Portlandia).

But his point regarding the establishment of a state EC would obviate the need for secession from the Valley.

A national popular vote would change the states of focus from the list you have above, to a list something like this:

California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Georgia
North Carolina

Yes, that's the top 10 most populous states in the Union.

I don't see how it would be that much different.

Mike -

I appreciate the the details re: Maine and Nebraska. I was not aware of that.

Thanks for the education.

And while we're at some wholesale constitutional amendments, here's a toss-up: what about the federal judiciary, how they're chosen and their life terms?

In 2004 Colorado had an initiative that would have ended the winner take all system in a different way than Maine and Nebraska from the federal register "Colorado's 2004 initiative would have proportionally allocated electoral votes based on the percentage of votes that each presidential candidate received. For example, if candidate A gets 55 percent of the vote and candidate B gets 45 percent, then candidate A gets 5 electoral votes and candidate B gets 4 electoral votes. If candidate A gets 67 percent, then candidate A gets 6 electoral votes and candidate B gets 3 electoral votes.

The initiative failed 65 percent to 35 percent.