The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2012 => Topic started by: CG6468 on August 09, 2012, 10:31:18 PM
-
Is this how Obama will steal election?
This quiet push would make citizens in dozens of states irrelevant
Progressive organizations are quietly pushing a “popular vote†that could see only 14 states – those with the largest populations – decide the presidency for voters in all 50 states, according to a book released this week that’s now skyrocketing up bestseller charts.
The book contains a bonus chapter on the subject and documents concerns over voter fraud in the upcoming presidential election.
It also presents new information about a foreign-based company – Scytl – running hundreds of online U.S. voting systems.
“Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed†uncovers the template for Obama’s next four years – the actual, extensive plans created by Obama’s own top advisers and progressive strategists.
The book is written by New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.
“Fool Me Twice†unveils all the main areas of Obama’s second-term domestic policy onslaught – jobs, wages, health care, immigration “overhaul,†electoral “reform,†national energy policy, Pentagon plans and more.
National Popular Vote
The vote for president is the only one in which all Americans vote for a national leader. In framing the U.S. Constitution, Klein and Elliott write, the Founding Fathers displayed their characteristic wisdom and subtlety in firmly rejecting a purely popular vote to elect the president, in order to balance the power of the larger states against the smaller.
The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an election of the president by direct popular vote and election by Congress.
However, “Fool Me Twice†documents how a group backed by a who’s who of the progressive left, calling itself the National Popular Vote, or NPV, has already been successful in quietly pushing for abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a “popular vote.â€
“Under the rubric of a ‘National Popular Vote,’ this plan would allow the 14 most populous American states, mostly majority-Democrat, to determine the outcome of future presidential elections. The voters of the 36 less populous states would then effectively be disenfranchised,†warn Klein and Elliott.
The plan is already gaining traction.
I find no reason to disbelieve this (http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/is-this-how-obama-will-steal-election/?cat_orig=politics)
-
They were talking about this when Bush won in 2000. Because Gore won the popular vote. The reason they haven't done it is because it would knock out all but, like said, 14 states. I don't agree with the popular vote. All legal citizens should be involved in it. So the delegate votes are here to stay. There is no way that the SCOTUS would make it popular vote, as if it was tried by the dems, you would see all 52 states filing lawsuits.
If you look, it is the dems who are trying to push it. And if you look right now, obama is ahead pretty good according to the popular vote.
Edited because I can't spell.
-
Mark Levin had this guy on his show tonight. His podcast should be up by now. I think it was the start of the third hour but not exactly sure.
-
They were talking about this when Bush one in 2000. Because Gore won the popular vote. The reason they haven't done it is because it would knock out all but, like said, 14 states. I don't agree with the popular vote. All legal citizens should be involved in it. So the delegate votes are here to stay. There is no way that the SCOTUS would make it popular vote, as if it was tried by the dems, you would see all 52 states filing lawsuits.
If you look, it is the dems who are trying to push it. And if you look right now, obama is ahead pretty good according to the popular vote.
52 states? What about the other six?
-
They were talking about this when Bush won in 2000. Because Gore won the popular vote. The reason they haven't done it is because it would knock out all but, like said, 14 states. I don't agree with the popular vote. All legal citizens should be involved in it. So the delegate votes are here to stay. There is no way that the SCOTUS would make it popular vote, as if it was tried by the dems, you would see all 52 states filing lawsuits.
If you look, it is the dems who are trying to push it. And if you look right now, obama is ahead pretty good according to the popular vote.
Edited because I can't spell.
You realize those same 14 states are all that are needed to win the EV vote also? You are even more at thier mercy with the electoral college since they would only need 51% democrat to win the EV but they would need 100% democrat to win the popular with just those states.
-
You realize those same 14 states are all that are needed to win the EV vote also? You are even more at thier mercy with the electoral college since they would only need 51% democrat to win the EV but they would need 100% democrat to win the popular with just those states.
With the PV you are restricting people from voting. With the EV you are not.
-
With the PV you are restricting people from voting. With the EV you are not.
How are you restricting people from voting with a PV? All votes count for something. EV makes people feel like thier vote doesnt count. because we already know how about 38 states are going to vote so the opposing party voters in that state have worthless votes.
The whole thing is a non issue because there will probably never be another EV/PV mismatch in our lifetimes. The reason dems are pushing it is obviously because of Gore, if 2000 had been reversed you know the GOP would be leading the charge.
Of those 14, 8 are dem locks, 3 are GOP locks and 3 are toss ups. The GOP is already at the point where they have to win all of the toss ups to win the election. If one more of those goes blue it could make it nearly impossible for the GOP to win even if they do win the PV.
-
No one has ever heard of 52 pickup ? If we are to use owebuma as the standard, there are 57 states, with 2 left to visit. I speak Austrian.
-
Is this how Obama will steal election?
Before we all start hyperventilating staring into this abyss, remember that the Electoral College is written into the core of the Constitution. It would require an amendment of the Constitution - ratified by more than the 14 most populous states of the union - in order to negate the electoral vote. There is no possible way - not even with an EXECUTIVE ORDER from The Holy WON of Chicago - the moonbats could get that orchestrated in the eighty some odd days left before the election.
-
No one has ever heard of 52 pickup ? If we are to use owebuma as the standard, there are 57 states, with 2 left to visit. I speak Austrian.
<=== Learned Austrian in high school (lo, these many decades ago...) :old:
-
Before we all start hyperventilating staring into this abyss, remember that the Electoral College is written into the core of the Constitution. It would require an amendment of the Constitution - ratified by more than the 14 most populous states of the union - in order to negate the electoral vote. There is no possible way - not even with an EXECUTIVE ORDER from The Holy WON of Chicago - the moonbats could get that orchestrated in the eighty some odd days left before the election.
H5 for clarity and reason
-
How are you restricting people from voting with a PV? All votes count for something. EV makes people feel like thier vote doesnt count. because we already know how about 38 states are going to vote so the opposing party voters in that state have worthless votes.
The whole thing is a non issue because there will probably never be another EV/PV mismatch in our lifetimes. The reason dems are pushing it is obviously because of Gore, if 2000 had been reversed you know the GOP would be leading the charge.
Of those 14, 8 are dem locks, 3 are GOP locks and 3 are toss ups. The GOP is already at the point where they have to win all of the toss ups to win the election. If one more of those goes blue it could make it nearly impossible for the GOP to win even if they do win the PV.
It will make only 14 states required, thus making the other38 states null and void. In my eyes, that is restricting the vote.
During campaign season you will only ever see the candidates go to those 14 states, and the conventions will only be held in those 14 states. Ads for the elections will only be aired in those 14 states. Thus, in my eyes, restricting the other 38.
What if they do this on the state level? Will it only be the most populated counties that get to vote?
What about the federal government - House and Senate? With the other 38 states null and void. Only the top 14 states will have representatives there.
See where this is going?
Edit: If they want PV then the 14 states that matter can separate from the Union to form their own country, and leave the other 38 to still have the EV.
-
It will make only 14 states required, thus making the other38 states null and void. In my eyes, that is restricting the vote.
During campaign season you will only ever see the candidates go to those 14 states, and the conventions will only be held in those 14 states. Ads for the elections will only be aired in those 14 states. Thus, in my eyes, restricting the other 38.
What if they do this on the state level? Will it only be the most populated counties that get to vote?
What about the federal government - House and Senate? With the other 38 states null and void. Only the top 14 states will have representatives there.
See where this is going?
Edit: If they want PV then the 14 states that matter can separate from the Union to form their own country, and leave the other 38 to still have the EV.
They would have to go to more than 14 states because as I pointed out they would have to win nearly 100% of the vote to win with just those states. But look at the electoral college since only about 12 states are up for grabs they are only campaigning in those 12 states.
And BTW you keep mentioning 52 states. There are only 50 and even if you are counting DC as a state since it gets EVs that's only 51.
-
In some states, like Illinois, a Republican vote means nothing except in the very few really strong Republican districts.
-
They would have to go to more than 14 states because as I pointed out they would have to win nearly 100% of the vote to win with just those states. But look at the electoral college since only about 12 states are up for grabs they are only campaigning in those 12 states.
And BTW you keep mentioning 52 states. There are only 50 and even if you are counting DC as a state since it gets EVs that's only 51.
Puerto Rico is a territory and its votes also count. That makes 52.
-
They would have to go to more than 14 states because as I pointed out they would have to win nearly 100% of the vote to win with just those states. But look at the electoral college since only about 12 states are up for grabs they are only campaigning in those 12 states.
And BTW you keep mentioning 52 states. There are only 50 and even if you are counting DC as a state since it gets EVs that's only 51.
I am including DC and Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico is a territory and its votes also count. That makes 52.
You posted this at the same time I posted mine.
-
You posted this at the same time I posted mine.
Echo chamber effect!
-
Echo chamber effect!
It must be.. :lmao:
-
Puerto Rico doesn't get to vote for the president.
-
Puerto Rico doesn't get to vote for the president.
That is correct.
-
That is correct.
Then why did you post this?
Puerto Rico is a territory and its votes also count.
-
Puerto Rico doesn't get to vote for the president.
Yeah, I was thinking they did since people from there are US citizens. The get to participate in the primaries, but not the general election.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/puerto-rico-and-the-general-election/
-
We could resort to voter fraud.
:whistling:
-
We could resort to voter fraud.
:whistling:
Can of worms. We need an emoticon for that.
-
Yeah, I was thinking they did since people from there are US citizens. The get to participate in the primaries, but not the general election.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/puerto-rico-and-the-general-election/
I thought the same thing.
-
No.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states, and been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes!
NOW, voters in dozens of states are irrelevant.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree that, at most, only 6-12 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. At most, 12 states will determine the election. Candidates will not care about at least 76% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and in 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning could be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. More than 85 million voters have been just spectators to the general election.
The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.
Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: “I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome. It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.
National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it.â€
Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote’s National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), and David Durenberger (R–MN) and former congressman John Buchanan (R–AL).
Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.
Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:â€A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.â€
Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote “ include:
Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.
Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican,
Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.
Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.
-
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .†The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary†and “exclusive.â€
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
-
Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.
With National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio
and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn’t be about winning a handful of battleground states.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. More than 2/3rds of states and voters are ignored.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are
non-competitive in presidential elections. 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. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
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. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.
Of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes) 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states – NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) – got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states.
In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.
-
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes!
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, 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).
-
Popular vote is one step away from mob rule.
-
The whole thing is a non issue because there will probably never be another EV/PV mismatch in our lifetimes.
The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
-
The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
60,000 is more than one sixth of the overall vote deficit. That ratio would be more troubling if it was one fiftieth.
-
Before we all start hyperventilating staring into this abyss, remember that the Electoral College is written into the core of the Constitution. It would require an amendment of the Constitution - ratified by more than the 14 most populous states of the union - in order to negate the electoral vote. There is no possible way - not even with an EXECUTIVE ORDER from The Holy WON of Chicago - the moonbats could get that orchestrated in the eighty some odd days left before the election.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.
The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states).
National Popular Vote does not negate the Electoral College vote. National Popular Vote does not change the Constitution. National Popular Vote does not need an amendment.
The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states. That majority of ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
-
Welcome to the forum, Kohler. Did you introduce yourself in the introduction thread?
-
Welcome to the forum, Kohler. Did you introduce yourself in the introduction thread?
Good call.
-
Popular vote is one step away from mob rule.
National Popular Vote ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over†now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. At most, 12 states in 2012 will determine the election.
Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
NationalPopularVote
-
Pure democracy is mob rule.
-
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.
The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states).
National Popular Vote does not negate the Electoral College vote. National Popular Vote does not change the Constitution. National Popular Vote does not need an amendment.
The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states. That majority of ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Oh goody...just in time for the weekend...a new chewtoy.
-
Pure democracy is mob rule.
But dammit..how else do you expect the Libs to finally do away with that pesky Republican party once and for all and ensure one party rule forever?
-
After reading all of that. I still don't agree with the popular vote; and still feel it eliminates the other 37 states.
-
But dammit..how else do you expect the Libs to finally do away with that pesky Republican party once and for all and ensure one party rule forever?
We could be off course heading towards "voter fraud".
-
We could be off course heading towards "voter fraud".
What do you mean heading for it? Voter fraud is what the liberals are all about.
-
What do you mean heading for it? Voter fraud is what the liberals are all about.
No that kind. The Danglar's kind.
-
Pure democracy is mob rule.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a representative democracy, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
-
After reading all of that. I still don't agree with the popular vote; and still feel it eliminates the other 37 states.
No state would be "eliminated."
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
-
No state would be "eliminated."
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
It will be based on the top populated states, leaving the rest out.
-
No state would be "eliminated."
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
That is not at all in keeping with the philosophy of the founders.
-
No state would be "eliminated."
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
This is just another libtard scheme to ensure they keep getting elected even when the people don't want them.
Only libtards bring this crap up...usually right before or right after one of their major candidates for office gets their ass handed to them.
Notice how you never hear about this stuff when Dems are winning or have super majorities in Congress.
-
That is not at all in keeping with the philosophy of the founders.
That's because this troll has no need for or belief in the Founding Fathers.
-
I see we have a copy/paste puppet.
I thought a lot of his text looked awful familiar.
-
That's because this troll has no need for or belief in the Founding Fathers.
I wonder if the liberals could even tell you who the founding fathers are? After watching some of the 'Waters World' segments on O'reilly, I don't think they could. Liberals are STUPID....
-
Electoral College Follow-up
My post last week about the Electoral College generated quite a bit of interest–from the National Popular Vote people, apparently. Within two hours of my post appearing, I received five very long rebuttals from the same untraceable hotmail account “mvymvy@hotmail.com” They arrived 1 minute apart. Overwhelm the opposition: typical leftist tactic.
I moderate this blog mostly to prevent the senseless ad hominem attacks that inevitably follow the expression of conservative opinion. These comments were not that: they were long lists of carefully selected facts to support the position of doing away with the Electoral College. If you want to see their position, go to the NPV site; I’m not going to become an extension of their propaganda machine.
http://reclaimtheblue.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/electoral-college-follow-up/
How Presidents Are Elected – Really
Funny how I got here. I have a Ga. news website that is basically a Drudge for Ga. news. I have a blog that goes along with it, but rarely post in there and its traffic is not great. However, one thing I do post in there is a column from GOP lawyer, former Newt counsel, Randy Evans. This week’s column had to do with the Electoral College.
Now I never get comments, like never. I posted the Randy Evans column last night, and today I get a similarly long rebuttal. I haven’t gotten five of them yet, but its long and from a committed National Popular Vote person. I wanted to look up said person, Googling them, I found my way to you.
http://thatsjustpeachy.com/thatsjustpeachyroundtable/?p=159
Looks like our little buddy has a paper trail. ****ing spammers.
-
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .†The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary†and “exclusive.â€
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
The bolded portion is word for word from:
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2404531
-
That is not at all in keeping with the philosophy of the founders.
With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.
Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where more than 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
-
This is just another libtard scheme to ensure they keep getting elected even when the people don't want them.
Only libtards bring this crap up...usually right before or right after one of their major candidates for office gets their ass handed to them.
Notice how you never hear about this stuff when Dems are winning or have super majorities in Congress.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
By state (Electoral College votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:
Alaska (3) -- 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters
Arkansas (6) -- 71% (R), 79% (Independents).
California (55) – 61% (R), 74% (I)
Colorado (9) -- 56% (R), 70% (I).
Connecticut (7) -- 67% (R)
Delaware (3) -- 69% (R), 76% (I)
DC (3) -- 48% (R), 74% of (I)
Florida (29) -- 68% (R)
Idaho(4) - 75% (R)
Iowa (6) -- 63% (R)
Kentucky (8) -- 71% (R), 70% (I)
Maine (4) - 70% (R)
Massachusetts (11) -- 54% (R)
Michigan (16) -- 68% (R), 73% (I)
Minnesota (10) -- 69% (R)
Montana (3)- 67% (R)
Mississippi (6) -- 75% (R)
Nebraska (5) -- 70% (R)
Nevada (5) -- 66% (R)
New Hampshire (4) -- 57% (R), 69% (I)
New Mexico (5) -- 64% (R), 68% (I)
New York (29) - 66% (R), 78% Independence, 50% Conservative
North Carolina (15) -- 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), 80% (I)
Ohio (18) -- 65% (R)
Oklahoma (7) -- 75% (R)
Oregon (7) -- 70% (R), 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20) -- 68% (R), 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4) -- 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), 78% (I),
South Carolina (8) -- 64% (R)
South Dakota (3) -- 67% (R)
Tennessee (11) -- 73% (R)
Utah (6) -- 66% (R)
Vermont (3) -- 61% (R)
Virginia (13) -- 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 54% conservative (R)
Washington (12) -- 65% (R)
West Virginia (5) -- 75% (R)
Wisconsin (10) -- 63% (R), 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) –66% (R), 72% (I)
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.
Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: “I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome. It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.
National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it.â€
Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote’s National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), and David Durenberger (R–MN) and former congressman John Buchanan (R–AL).
Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.
Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:â€A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.â€
Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote “ include:
Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.
Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican,
Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.
Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.
-
With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.
Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where more than 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
Do you have any thoughts of your own or are you going to merely keep copy/pasting from other web sites?
-
The mob rule guy is wrong again. The founding fathers wanted some aspects of majority rule, but also some aspects that would level the playing field for the smaller states. You must have both to prevent the more populous states from running over the smaller states.
-
Is Kohler Benny?
-
Is Kohler Benny?
Possible, but has a slightly different style. My vote is no, but then again, Benny's had multiple sock puppets here. I guess he can't take no for an answer. :loser:
-
The mob rule guy is wrong again. The founding fathers wanted some aspects of majority rule, but also some aspects that would level the playing field for the smaller states. You must have both to prevent the more populous states from running over the smaller states.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes!
-
The popular vote will exclude 37 states.
Tell me, kohler, what do you think of Ron Paul? I am starting to think that you are posting all this stuff because of how didn't win a single state, but has a fairly big 'POPULAR' voting appeal.
-
The popular vote will exclude 37 states.
The electoral vote excludes 37 states. What's your point?
-
The electoral vote excludes 37 states. What's your point?
No it doesn't. Show me where it does.
The Winner-Take-All Method of Distributing Electoral Votes
The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored.
Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state.
Some states are still excluded from the campaign; these are not necessarily the small states, but rather they are the states that are not viewed as competitive. <- It doesn't say how many. But I doubt it is 37 ...
Since the Electoral College allocates each state’s votes (except Maine and Nebraska) in a winner-take-all method, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in a state that already favors them or their opponent. <- So maybe it is just two?
As an example, Democratic candidates have little incentive to spend time in solidly Republican states, like Texas, even if many Democrats live there. Conversely, Republican candidates have little incentive to campaign in solidly Democratic states, like Massachusetts, especially when they know that states like Florida and Michigan are toss-ups.
The winner-take-all rule also leads to lower voter turnout in states where one party is dominant, because each individual vote will be overwhelmed by the majority and will not, in effect, "count" if the winner takes all the electoral votes.
Source: http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/problems.htm
From what I see, you need the smaller states to get the delegates. Where as with the PV you only need the top 14 states. Thus excluding the other 37.
-
No it doesn't. Show me where it does.
The Winner-Take-All Method of Distributing Electoral Votes
The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored.
Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state.
Some states are still excluded from the campaign; these are not necessarily the small states, but rather they are the states that are not viewed as competitive. <- It doesn't say how many. But I doubt it is 37 ...
Since the Electoral College allocates each state’s votes (except Maine and Nebraska) in a winner-take-all method, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in a state that already favors them or their opponent. <- So maybe it is just two?
As an example, Democratic candidates have little incentive to spend time in solidly Republican states, like Texas, even if many Democrats live there. Conversely, Republican candidates have little incentive to campaign in solidly Democratic states, like Massachusetts, especially when they know that states like Florida and Michigan are toss-ups.
The winner-take-all rule also leads to lower voter turnout in states where one party is dominant, because each individual vote will be overwhelmed by the majority and will not, in effect, "count" if the winner takes all the electoral votes.
Source: http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/problems.htm
From what I see, you need the smaller states to get the delegates. Where as with the PV you only need the top 14 states. Thus excluding the other 37.
There are usually only 12 swing states at best each electin cycle so all the rest are ignored. And you keep stating this fallacy that only 14 states would be campaigned in a popular vote. A candidate would have to get nearly 100% of the vote in those states to only campaign there. They would have to campaign in 20 states minimum to get to the 50% national vote total.
-
There are usually only 12 swing states at best each electin cycle so all the rest are ignored. And you keep stating this fallacy that only 14 states would be campaigned in a popular vote. A candidate would have to get nearly 100% of the vote in those states to only campaign there. They would have to campaign in 20 states minimum to get to the 50% national vote total.
O.k. I see what you are saying now. I guess with having to get 100% of the vote you would have to depend on more. I was still thinking that with the popular vote they would get the delegates, at which point they would not have to get 100% of the vote. All the would need is 51% of the state vote.
-
O.k. I see what you are saying now. I guess with having to get 100% of the vote you would have to depend on more. I was still thinking that with the popular vote they would get the delegates, at which point they would not have to get 100% of the vote. All the would need is 51% of the state vote.
that is what the electoral college is its essentially a popular vote by state except for Maine and Nebraska.
In 22 of the states the electors are legally bound to vote for the candidate chosen by there states but even in the others faithless electors are usually a result of ballot mistakes. What we have evolved into is a horrible mash up of a republic and democracy. We need to either go back to just putting our faith in the electoral college voters or go to a full democratic vote. What we have now just makes a lot of people feel disenfranchised in many states and has the possibility of dividing the country after an election instead of uniting them.
Just looking at Obama's 2008 win it took him the top 34 most populated states to get over the 50% mark. So i was a bit off when I said just 20 states. a popular vote would essential bring the campaign to almost every state.
-
The delegates do NOT have to vote to show their constituents' results.
<snip>
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
<snip>
No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
DELAWARE
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTH DAKOTA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
WEST VIRGINIA