A lot of people are talking about what is known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The NPVIC is a proposed state-driven method of rendering the electoral college obsolete. In a nutshell, this is how it works: when a state adopts the NPVIC, it agrees to award its electoral votes to the winner of the overall national popular vote. Once the total number of states having adopted the NPVIC equals or surpasses 270 Electoral Votes, the Compact would go into effect, thereby awarding 270+EVs to the winner of the national popular vote. As it currently stands, 9 states + DC (136 electoral votes) have adopted the compact.
My question is this: is such a compact Constitutional?
1) Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress". The pro-argument is that states are given the explicit right to determine how to choose electors, so long as other Constitutional clauses/amendments are not violated, and because the compact does not discriminate/infringe on voting rights, and because each state adopts it individually, it is Constitutional.
2) Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution states that "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." The counterargument is that the NPVIC is, inherently, an agreement/compact, and unless it is approved by Congress, it is unconstitutional.
So, without rendering a judgement on the merits of the IDEA itself, my question is -- from a Constitutional standpoint -- the NPVIC constitutional?
No, it's not Constitutional, the EC was designed to avoid the consequence of a popular vote, or rather mob rule.
It's why we're a Republic and not a Democracy.
Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 12:55:49 PM
No, it's not Constitutional, the EC was designed to avoid the consequence of a popular vote, or rather mob rule.
It's why we're a Republic and not a Democracy.
I totally agree with you about the EC - I firmly believe in maintaining the EC.
But from the legal side, how do you see it as unconstitutional if each state is exercising their right to choose how to appoint their electors?
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 01:00:09 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 12:55:49 PM
No, it's not Constitutional, the EC was designed to avoid the consequence of a popular vote, or rather mob rule.
It's why we're a Republic and not a Democracy.
I totally agree with you about the EC - I firmly believe in maintaining the EC.
But from the legal side, how do you see it as unconstitutional if each state is exercising their right to choose how to appoint their electors?
Just because it passed in 9 lib states and DC, still doesn't make it Constitutional.
Do you really expect the RINO to challenge it?
Illinois (20)
Maryland
California
Hawaii
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Vermont
Washington
District of Columbia
Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 01:04:45 PM
Just because it passed in 9 lib states and DC, still doesn't make it Constitutional.
Do you really expect the RINO to challenge it?
Illinois (20)
Maryland
California
Hawaii
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Vermont
Washington
District of Columbia
Quote feature fail.
The political alignment of the states that passed it has no relevance on whether or not it is Constitutional. And to be clear, I am NOT disagreeing with you that it's a bad idea. But I'm having a hard time seeing how it's not Constitutional if Congress approves it.
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 01:00:09 PM
I totally agree with you about the EC - I firmly believe in maintaining the EC.
But from the legal side, how do you see it as unconstitutional if each state is exercising their right to choose how to appoint their electors?
First, I think we must acknowledge this would end up in the SCOTUS. Secondly, I think even a number of blue states would not desire to give up their citizens rights to be a part of electing a president. I can see the leftists all in on this idea.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 09, 2014, 01:09:23 PM
First, I think we must acknowledge this would end up in the SCOTUS. Secondly, I think even a number of blue states would not desire to give up their citizens rights to be a part of electing a president. I can see the leftists all in on this idea.
Oh, absolutely. I think it would go to the SCOTUS
And you're right - it's already been rejected in several blue states.
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 01:07:05 PM
Quote feature fail.
The political alignment of the states that passed it has no relevance on whether or not it is Constitutional. And to be clear, I am NOT disagreeing with you that it's a bad idea. But I'm having a hard time seeing how it's not Constitutional if Congress approves it.
Seems that your OP has the answer in Article 1, Section 10
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 01:07:05 PM
Quote feature fail.
The political alignment of the states that passed it has no relevance on whether or not it is Constitutional. And to be clear, I am NOT disagreeing with you that it's a bad idea. But I'm having a hard time seeing how it's not Constitutional if Congress approves it.
So, just because Congress signs off on it, it's suddenly Constitutional? Are you kidding me?
Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 01:26:36 PM
So, just because Congress signs off on it, it's suddenly Constitutional? Are you kidding me?
That's the question at hand. I refer you to Article 1, Section 10.
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 01:34:56 PM
That's the question at hand. I refer you to Article 1, Section 10.
Did I not already answer it clear enough for you??
Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 02:08:42 PM
Did I not already answer it clear enough for you??
You answered it, but you didn't address the legal language of said article/section.
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 02:18:42 PM
You answered it, but you didn't address the legal language of said article/section.
Neither have you.
I see no reason to debate an issue close to libs hearts, considering this was only given birth after Gore got his ass handed to him by SCOTUS.
Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 03:24:12 PM
Neither have you.
I see no reason to debate an issue close to libs hearts, considering this was only given birth after Gore got his ass handed to him by SCOTUS.
You do realize that a 4% shift of the national vote towards Romney would have made him the winner of the popular vote, but the loser of the electoral college, right?
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 03:36:58 PM
You do realize that a 4% shift of the national vote towards Romney would have made him the winner of the popular vote, but the loser of the electoral college, right?
Even if he did and he lost, I would be against changing a fundamental structure put in place by our founders!
Quote from: redbeard on February 09, 2014, 03:40:41 PM
Even if he did and he lost, I would be against changing a fundamental structure put in place by our founders!
I am against it too! I do NOT want to change the electoral college.
My question is entirely limited to the legal merits of the NPVIC
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 03:36:58 PM
You do realize that a 4% shift of the national vote towards Romney would have made him the winner of the popular vote, but the loser of the electoral college, right?
Which is a moot point, considering he lost.
Why do you think the left screwed Ca with this nonsense, when 85% of the state is geographically Conservative?
Think about that for a moment...
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 03:42:10 PM
I am against it too! I do NOT want to change the electoral college.
My question is entirely limited to the legal merits of the NPVIC
Liberals, and legal....Really?
Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 06:07:16 PM
Which is a moot point, considering he lost.
Why do you think the left screwed Ca with this nonsense, when 85% of the state is geographically Conservative?
Think about that for a moment...
I'm sorry.. geographically Conservative? As in, more square feet of Conservatism?
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 06:42:26 PM
I'm sorry.. geographically Conservative? As in, more square feet of Conservatism?
And this boy is in college. :rolleyes:
Quote from: walkstall on February 09, 2014, 07:02:21 PM
And this boy is in college. :rolleyes:
He seems to be suggesting that the fact that a larger geographic percentage of California votes Conservative is relevant. It's not. MANY, MANY, MANY more people live on the coast.
Quote from: walkstall on February 09, 2014, 07:02:21 PM
And this boy is in college. :rolleyes:
https://www.ringling.com/ContentPage.aspx?id=45924§ion=45688 (https://www.ringling.com/ContentPage.aspx?id=45924§ion=45688)
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 09, 2014, 07:17:16 PM
https://www.ringling.com/ContentPage.aspx?id=45924§ion=45688 (https://www.ringling.com/ContentPage.aspx?id=45924§ion=45688)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freebingonodeposit.uk.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Fbingo.jpg&hash=f7faf5e8827417aace4f2d6f7030ba0f0dc6eab5)
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 07:13:08 PM
He seems to be suggesting that the fact that a larger geographic percentage of California votes Conservative is relevant. It's not. MANY, MANY, MANY more people live on the coast.
Excuse my bluntness. But you're a Dumb Ass! Ever heard of Gerrymandering?
That's why this electoral College is so important, the Marxists have stolen the voice of the majority of the state!
Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 08:45:16 PM
Excuse my bluntness. But you're a Dumb Ass! Ever heard of Gerrymandering?
That's why this electoral College is so important, the Marxists have stolen the voice of the majority of the state!
Excuse my bluntness. But people who put up a county-level election map and say "OMG look how much more of the country is red! The dumbocrats stole deh election!!" make me physically ill.
And you do realize that Gerrymandering 1) has NOTHING to do with Presidential, Gubernatorial, Senatorial, or any other statewide elections, and 2) has GREATLY helped Republicans in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, right?
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 10, 2014, 04:13:21 AM
Excuse my bluntness. But people who put up a county-level election map and say "OMG look how much more of the country is red! The dumbocrats stole deh election!!" make me physically ill.
And you do realize that Gerrymandering 1) has NOTHING to do with Presidential, Gubernatorial, Senatorial, or any other statewide elections, and 2)
Has what to do with anything I said, where??
Quotehas GREATLY helped Republicans in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, right?
So now you're at the core of why you started this thread. It had nothing to do with your curiosity on the subject, that was a lie, because here you are defending it.
You are probably one of the shallowest most transparent shills to ever grace these halls.
Quote from: Solar on February 10, 2014, 05:58:57 AM
Has what to do with anything I said, where??
So now you're at the core of why you started this thread. It had nothing to do with your curiosity on the subject, that was a lie, because here you are defending it.
You are probably one of the shallowest most transparent shills to ever grace these halls.
*SIGH*
Who brought up gerrymandering? YOU DID.
I AM NOT defending either the NPVIC or gerrymandering, and no fair-minded, critical-thinking reader of this forum will believe that I am. I am refuting your assertion that the electoral college is important because it prevents gerrymandering to benefit Marxists.
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 12:51:38 PM
2) Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution states that "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." The counterargument is that the NPVIC is, inherently, an agreement/compact, and unless it is approved by Congress, it is unconstitutional.
Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.
The U.S. Constitution provides:
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress,... enter into any agreement or compact with another state...."
Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
"Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.
"The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."
Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."
The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...."
In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"
The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.
In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states' action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:
"the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government."
The Court also noted that the compact did not
"authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence."
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 10, 2014, 06:41:57 AM
*SIGH*
Who brought up gerrymandering? YOU DID.
I AM NOT defending either the NPVIC or gerrymandering, and no fair-minded, critical-thinking reader of this forum will believe that I am. I am refuting your assertion that the electoral college is important because it prevents gerrymandering to benefit Marxists.
Which is it, obfuscation, denial, or simply outright lying?
Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 12:55:49 PM
No, it's not Constitutional, the EC was designed to avoid the consequence of a popular vote, or rather mob rule.
It's why we're a Republic and not a Democracy.
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. Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 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.
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 Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. In 2008, 98% of the 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.
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.
When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
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 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.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
BTW . . . 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 23% of the nation's votes!
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 09, 2014, 01:09:23 PM
First, I think we must acknowledge this would end up in the SCOTUS. Secondly, I think even a number of blue states would not desire to give up their citizens rights to be a part of electing a president. I can see the leftists all in on this idea.
In May 2011, 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 [that then existed in 2011].
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 " http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ (http://www.every-vote-equal.com/) 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 was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.
James Brulte served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.
Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002
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.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 09, 2014, 01:09:23 PM
First, I think we must acknowledge this would end up in the SCOTUS. Secondly, I think even a number of blue states would not desire to give up their citizens rights to be a part of electing a president. I can see the leftists all in on this idea.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state's first-place candidate).
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. 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).
With National Popular Vote, 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.
When and where voters matter, then so do the issues they care about most.
Now, policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states - that include 10 of the original 13 states - are not as highly prioritized as policies important to 'battleground' states when it comes to governing, too.
Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
"Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn't taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states."
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
"If people don't like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state."
Since World War II, a shift of only a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama's nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 09, 2014, 01:09:23 PM
First, I think we must acknowledge this would end up in the SCOTUS. Secondly, I think even a number of blue states would not desire to give up their citizens rights to be a part of electing a president. I can see the leftists all in on this idea.
By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:
Alaska (3)- 78% among (Democrats), 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
Arkansas (6)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 79% (Independents).
Arizona - 60% (R), 79% (D), and 57% others
California (55)– 76% (D), 61% (R), and 74% (I)
Colorado (9)- 79% (D), 56% (R), and 70% (I).
Connecticut (7)- 80% (D), 67% (R), and 71% others
Delaware (3)- 79% (D), 69% (R), and 76% (I)
District of Columbia (3)- 80% (D), 48% (R), and 74% of (I)
Florida (29)- 88% (D), 68% (R), and 76% others
Idaho(4) - 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Iowa (6)- 82% (D), 63% (R), and 77% others
Kentucky (8)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 70% (I)
Maine (4) - 85% (D), 70% (R), and 73% others
Massachusetts (11)- 86% (D), 54% (R), and 68% others
Michigan (16)- 78% (D), 68% (R), and 73% (I)
Minnesota (10)- 84% (D), 69% (R), and 68% others
Mississippi (6)- 79% (D), 75% (R), and 75% Others
Montana – 67% (R), 80% (D), and 70% others
Nebraska (5)- 79% (D), 70% (R), and 75% Others
Nevada (5)- 80% (D), 66% (R), and 68% Others
New Hampshire (4)- 80% (D), 57% (R), and 69% (I)
New Mexico (5)- 84% (D), 64% (R), and 68% (I)
New York (29) - 86% (D), 66% (R), 78% Independence Party members, 50% Conservative Party members, 100% Working Families Party members, and 70% Others
North Carolina (15)- 75% liberal (D), 78% moderate (D), 76% conservative (D), 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), and 80% (I)
Ohio (18)- 81% (D), 65% (R), and 61% Others
Oklahoma (7)- 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Oregon (7)- 82% (D), 70% (R), and 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20)- 87% (D), 68% (R), and 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4)- 86% liberal (D), 85% moderate (D), 60% conservative (D), 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), and 78% (I),
South Carolina - 64% (R), 81% (D), and 68% others
South Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
Tennessee 73% (R), 78% (D)
Utah (6)- 82% (D), 66% (R), and 75% others
Vermont (3)- 86% (D); 61% (R), and 74% Others
Virginia (13)- 79% liberal (D), 86% moderate (D), 79% conservative (D), 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), and 54% conservative (R), and 79% Others
Washington (12)- 88% (D), 65% (R), and 73% others
West Virginia (5)- 87% (D), 75% (R), and 73% others
Wisconsin (10)- 81% (D), 63% (R), and 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) – 77% (D), 66% (R), and 72% (I)
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php (http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php)
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 09, 2014, 01:09:23 PM
First, I think we must acknowledge this would end up in the SCOTUS. Secondly, I think even a number of blue states would not desire to give up their citizens rights to be a part of electing a president. I can see the leftists all in on this idea.
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 Alaska (70%), Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (74%), Delaware (75%), District of Columbia (76%), Florida (78%), Idaho (77%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (77%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), Montana (72%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (67%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Oklahoma (81%), Oregon (76%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), South Carolina (71%), South Dakota (75%), Utah (70%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington state (77%), Wisconsin (71%), West Virginia (81%), and Wyoming (69%).
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers, in 21 states, including one house in Arkansas(6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), New York (29), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13). These ten jurisdictions have 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Quote from: redbeard on February 09, 2014, 03:40:41 PM
. . . I would be against changing a fundamental structure put in place by our founders!
Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.
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.
Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 80% of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Once the conventions are over, presidential candidates now don't visit or spend resources in 80% of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored.
With National Popular Vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. 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.
States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.
Quote from: Solar on February 10, 2014, 09:38:03 AM
Which is it, obfuscation, denial, or simply outright lying?
Obfuscation? I'm clarifying things.
What am I denying? What lie have I told?
Quote from: kohler on February 10, 2014, 09:40:17 AM
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. Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 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.
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 Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. In 2008, 98% of the 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.
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.
When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
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 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.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
BTW . . . 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 23% of the nation's votes!
The National Popular Vote would turn us over to a few Democrat controlled, corrupt states. And what is wrong about limiting the franchise to the people who are actually going to have to foot the bill? And the position of President is filled by the
STATES. Each state acting as an entity. Understand, many of the smaller states would have never have originally joined the union, if it was going to be dominated by a few big states. In the EC many of the smaller states "punch above their weight".
Quote from: mdgiles on February 10, 2014, 11:52:22 AM
The National Popular Vote would turn us over to a few Democrat controlled, corrupt 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 23% 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.
In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of "wasted" popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826
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).
Quote from: mdgiles on February 10, 2014, 11:52:22 AM
. . .And the position of President is filled by the STATES.
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 constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the National Popular Vote bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
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.
Quote from: mdgiles on February 10, 2014, 11:52:22 AM
. . . Understand, many of the smaller states would have never have originally joined the union, if it was going to be dominated by a few big states. In the EC many of the smaller states "punch above their weight".
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. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns.
Winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.
In 2008, 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.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
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.
Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry's 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.
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%.
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
Quote from: kohler on February 10, 2014, 12:45:46 PM
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. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns.
Winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.
In 2008, 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.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
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.
Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry's 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.
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%.
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
Kohler is obviously obsessed with this concept. I won't take so long. I don't buy it as it is an invitation for dems to steal presidential elections.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 10, 2014, 12:56:34 PM
. . . it is an invitation for dems to steal presidential elections.
Foreseeing apocalyptic mythical fraud as a reason for keeping a system where most people's votes don't count for anything is not a compelling argument.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.
The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 10, 2014, 12:56:34 PM
Kohler is obviously obsessed with this concept. I won't take so long. I don't buy it as it is an invitation for dems to steal presidential elections.
The Left won't be happy until Mob rule is a reality, of course backed up by Left propaganda.
Want to "reform" the system?? Go back to the original Elector system, and get rid of the Party Pledge, what the hell does "popular vote" of the masses have to do with the Executive Branch of a Republican government???
Answer...not a damn thing!! It always amazes me how little the left understands the brilliance of the Founders.
Quote from: kohler on February 10, 2014, 01:14:59 PM
Foreseeing apocalyptic mythical fraud as a reason for keeping a system where most people's votes don't count for anything is not a compelling argument.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.
The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?
This one works just fine. It makes every state important and follows the wisdom of the founders with an electoral vote for each representative and senator.
I am of the opinon this thread should be moved to the "Distraction" page.
Quote from: JRP1990 on February 10, 2014, 09:59:35 AM
Obfuscation? I'm clarifying things.
What am I denying? What lie have I told?
Quit playing thick, we know your game here, you aren't fooling anyone.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 10, 2014, 01:59:13 PM
This one works just fine. It makes every state important and follows the wisdom of the founders with an electoral vote for each representative and senator.
I am of the opinon this thread should be moved to the "Distraction" page.
Excellent point.
Quote from: kohler on February 10, 2014, 12:40:59 PM
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 23% 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.
In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of "wasted" popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826
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).
You simply don't understand. Those are not "wasted" votes because the idea of the EC is to represent the will of the
STATES, The purpose of the Presidential election is not who gets the most popular votes, but to see who wins the most states with their votes. Anyone who doesn't understand that the US is a Constitutional Republic, is wasting our time here.. It is
NOT a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is a lynch mob, one hundred for hanging the bastard, one against. To win the Presidency you are required to compete in 50 elections not one. And you are required to win enough of those 50 elections, to win enough country wide approval.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 10, 2014, 01:59:13 PM
This one works just fine. It makes every state important and follows the wisdom of the founders with an electoral vote for each representative and senator.
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.
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party's presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.
During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.
Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
"Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn't taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states."
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
"If people don't like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state."
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to 'battleground' states when it comes to governing.
Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections
The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state's Electoral College 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.
The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It 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.
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. When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states.
Quote from: mdgiles on February 10, 2014, 02:17:08 PM
You simply don't understand. Those are not "wasted" votes because the idea of the EC is to represent the will of the STATES, The purpose of the Presidential election is not who gets the most popular votes, but to see who wins the most states with their votes. Anyone who doesn't understand that the US is a Constitutional Republic, is wasting our time here.. It is NOT a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is a lynch mob, one hundred for hanging the bastard, one against. To win the Presidency you are required to compete in 50 elections not one. And you are required to win enough of those 50 elections, to win enough country wide approval.
Read again. The purpose of the Presidential election is NOT who wins the most states with their votes. Presidential elections are won with enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 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.
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 23% of the nation's votes!
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 Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
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.
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.
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.
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
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 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.
Quote from: kohler on February 10, 2014, 03:02:56 PM
Read again. The purpose of the Presidential election is NOT who wins the most states with their votes. Presidential elections are won with enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 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.
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 23% of the nation's votes!
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 Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
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.
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.
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.
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
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 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.
Kohler, just a word of advice, cutting and pasting will quickly get you banned.