Is this how Obama will steal election?

[Kyle Ricky]

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....

[Chris_]

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.

[rich_t]

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.

The bolded portion is word for word from:

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2404531

[kohler]

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.

[kohler]

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.”

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:”A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”

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.

[rich_t]

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?

[obumazombie]

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.

[Kyle Ricky]

Is Kohler Benny?

[Eupher]

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. 

[kohler]

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!

[Kyle Ricky]

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.

[BigTex]

The popular vote will exclude 37 states.

The electoral vote excludes 37 states. What's your point?

[Kyle Ricky]

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.

[BigTex]

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.

[Kyle Ricky]

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.

[BigTex]

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.

[CG6468]

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