Skip to content
Search AI Powered

Latest Stories

The United States Just Got a Huge Step Closer to Electing a President off the Popular Vote

The United States Just Got a Huge Step Closer to Electing a President off the Popular Vote

What a development.

After the 2016 presidential election, questions about a person losing the popular vote by millions of votes but winning the presidency again came to the forefront. Five times the winner of the most votes in the presidential election lost the presidency due to the electoral college: 1824 - John Quincy Adams, 1876 - Rutherford Hayes, 1888 - Benjamin Harrison, 2000 - George W. Bush and 2016 - Donald Trump.

Only Hayes lost by a wider percentage than President Trump. But the electoral college is part of the United States Constitution and would require an amendment to abolish.


While efforts to permanently abolish the electoral college are being pursued, several states decided to take steps that are within their own power to change without a constitutional amendment. States decide how their electoral votes are allocated.

Most states choose one of two options: the state's popular vote winner getting all of the state's electoral votes or apportioning electoral votes based on the percentage of the popular vote within the state.

But now states are adopting a new plan.

Fifteen states have joined a compact to give all of their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. New Mexico joined California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state in the compact.

And more states are reviewing the compact and may join as well. A similar initiative has been introduced in all 50 states at some point in history, with 23 states approving some version of it.

The current effort was created in 2006 by the National Popular Vote project (NPV). It makes the Electoral College moot, eliminating the chance of a candidate becoming President without winning the popular vote nationally.

With the addition of New Mexico, 189 electoral votes are now pledged to go to the winner of the national popular vote. A candidate requires 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Oregon currently has a bill in their legislature to join the compact. If it passes, seven more electoral votes would be added leaving the compact just 74 electoral votes shy of their goal.

Of the states not currently in the compact, Texas (38), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Georgia (16) and Michigan (16) have the most electoral votes.

And it appears more people are on board for a change after 2016.

According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Hillary Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610 votes to Donald Trump's 62,979,636. That's a difference of 2,864,974.

People expressed their support for the winner of the popular vote winning the presidency.

People also took the opportunity to remind everyone who won the popular vote in 2016.

Those who oppose the compact claim it is unconstitutional or will eliminate the electoral college. The National Popular Vote project disputes those claims.

More from News

Kate Gosselin
Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images

Kate Gosselin Shares The 'Lasting Effects' Of Having Sextuplets On Her Body—And We Can Only Imagine

TLC programming was a major part of Millennial and Gen-X culture, particularly shows like Teen Mom, Catfish, Jon & Kate Plus 8, and Keeping Up with the Kardashians.

If you were ever curious for a closer glimpse of Kate Gosselin, mother of twins and then sextuplets, and her life, now is your chance!

Keep ReadingShow less
screenshot of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris presidential debate
CNN

Video Of Kamala Warning Trump About Putin's Agenda Goes Viral After Russian Drones Enter Polish Airspace

One year ago, pundits and the press were analyzing the performances of Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris and former President and MAGA Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in the first and only debate between the pair before the 2024 presidential election.

During that face-off, it was noted that Trump refused to answer if he wanted United States ally Ukraine to win the war Russia began by invading their neighbor.

Keep ReadingShow less
An 87-year-old Gramercy Park man and his wife fought off a pair of watch thieves in a scam gone wrong.
Eyewitness News ABC7NY/YouTube

87-Year-Old Foils Watch Thieves

Who needs another season of Mr. and Mrs. Smith when Gramercy Park’s own Larry Schwartz and Joanna Cuccia are already serving action-comedy gold? At 87, Schwartz casually knocks out 240 reps a day and chases off watch thieves as if it were just another warm-up set.

And Larry Schwartz wasn’t about to let some Rolex-swapping grifter make him the punchline of a TikTok crime wave.

Keep ReadingShow less
Anna Wintour Reveals Her Honest Reaction To Seeing 'The Devil Wears Prada'—And It's Kind Of Iconic
Gilbert Carrasquillo/GC Images; 20th Century Fox

Anna Wintour Reveals Her Honest Reaction To Seeing 'The Devil Wears Prada'—And It's Kind Of Iconic

If you've ever wondered if legendary Vogue Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour has ever seen The Devil Wears Prada, the answer is yes, and she's finally shared her opinions on the film.

The movie, based on Lauren Weisberger's novel of the same name, centers around the trials and tribulations a young writer endures under a legendarily icy fashion editor named Miranda Priestley.

Keep ReadingShow less
Screenshots of Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Colbert, and crowd giving standing ovation
CBS

Powerful Line From Sotomayor's Scathing Dissent After ICE Ruling Ignites Standing Ovation On 'Colbert'

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor received a standing ovation during her appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert after Colbert read a line from her powerful dissent following the Court's ruling that immigration agents can use racial profiling when conducting arrests.

The case was brought by several individuals detained during ICE raids. A federal district judge initially found the raids unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Keep ReadingShow less