The International Symbol of Democracy
Posted on 10/24/2011 9:42:48 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Just a correction on Nebraska, Obama got one electoral vote by winning the second congressional district (urbanites in Omaha). McCain received the other 4 NE electoral votes.
Did it change the electoral vote at all, if not the outcome?
Have you published it anywhere? If you could just upload your Excel workbook to Google Docs, I'd really like to see it.
Fine.
As soon as 2/3 of each House of Congress and 3/4 of the State Legislatures or conventions agree, it's done.
Until then, STFU because what "most people want" is not part of our system of government.
I’ll have to find it, I worked it up in 2008 before the election and then I did the analysis after the election for 2008.
Yes, there were some changes to the EC vote totals in all elections, but I think I went to 1960 and no elections changed hands.
I will see if I can find the file tonight when I get home.
Ah, thank you. The webpage that I cited must not have been updated since then.
Most people have no clue of the function of the electoral college.
We have raised generations of fools, aclimated to a voting for entertainers mentality.
Yes, 62% of the US population apparently does not realize that without the electoral college the President would be elected by NY and CA every 4 years. And we all know what that means.
That will dilute (i.e. lessen, or abridge) the votes of that state's eligible voters. For example, consider California which has a population of 37 million. Their voting population represents 12% of the national vote. If California decides to allow the entire nation to select it's electors, then 88% of the right of their voting population had been denied since each California voter would only count as one-eight of a vote. Thus by the 14th Amendment, their basis of representation therein shall be reduced. So California's 63 Representatives are reduced to 8, and their electoral votes are reduced from 65 to 10.
Of course I do realize that since this is actually in the Constitution, it means that Democrats will ignore it.
The International Symbol of Democracy
IIRC, they went after the rich...........
The Congressional District [CD] method is by far the fairest. It is based upon how we elect our Representatives and Senators. One vote for the winner of each specific district and two votes for the winner of the overall popular vote within the state.
Using the current method, there are normally solid minority-party districts within a solidly Blue [or Red] state. Minority-party voters go to the polls and their candidate wins the district - only to have their vote REVERSED and given to the winner of the overall winner of the popular vote. And for this reason, MANY minority-party voters simply DO NOT vote.
The CD method would ENCOURAGE voters of the minority party within a solidly Blue [or Red] state to show up at the polls since they know that their vote WOULD actually count at the district level.
Additionally, many MAJORITY-PARTY voters stay away from the polls in a solidly Blue [or Red] state, since the overall winner of the popular vote is a foregone conclusion.
The CD method would ENCOURAGE MORE voters of the MAJORITY-PARTY within a solidly Blue [or Red] state to show up at the polls since they know that their candidate is at risk for the electoral vote assigned to their district.
With NPV, the possiblity of NATION-WIDE recounts is VERY real - in razor-thin elections, since EACH AND EVERY VOTE counts in order to determine the winner. This could FORCE EVERY STATE [including ones NOT participating in the NPV] into a MANDATORY recount - even if a particular state has a LANDSLIDE for one candidate.
The CD method ELIMINATES this possibility by RESTRICTING recounts to the districts [and sometimes states]. Districts with landslide victories WOULD NOT be required to recount in order to determine the awarding of the one electoral vote - only districts with razor-thin popular vote margins. Same holds true at the state level - only those with razor-thin overall popular vote margins would recount for the extra two electoral votes.
The NPV may also be unconstitutional under the Interstate Compact Clause and/or the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled that:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution."
BUT HAS ALSO RULED THAT:
"When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter."
AND THAT:
"The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964)."
Additionally, the NPV may run into a problem with an obsure passage in the 14th Amendment:
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
The KEY phrases here are:
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States ... is denied ... or in any way abridged ..."
The NPV ESSENTIALY does just that. The right to vote for the CHOICE of electors is granted by the state. And the choice within the state will stand - AS LONG AS THE CHOICE WINS THE OVERALL POPULAR VOTE. IF the choice IS NOT the overall winner of the national popular vote, the choice is then SUBSTITUTED by the state and given to the winner of the NPV ...
But the MAJORITY approved.
I would award the two at-large votes to the winner of the majority of the state's CDs (or split the at-large votes in the event of a CD tie).
That helps to firewall vote fraud. E.g., if the at-large votes are based on the CD results, then stuffing the ballot box only wins the districts where it happens, as opposed to possibly tipping the state's popular vote, thus stealing the two at-large votes as well. It also means that, if the results are challenged, you only need recount the disputed districts, not the whole state (or the whole country!).
They are not going to let that silly old piece of paper stand in their way. Several states have joined in an illegal compact to award their votes according to popular vote. Since it is illegal we probably shouldn’t worry, what could go wrong, go wrong, go wrong...
Hoo, you assume the Supreme Court gives a cr@p, I fear they don’t.
Their delay in chopping off the tens of Billions in the health plan shows me they are complicit.
During the Clinton Administration they tried to implement statistical analysis in the census, this was just the first step in their plan, first the census, then the government.
Recounts would be pure hell.
Imagine Bush/Gore/Florida (times 57!)
It’s hard to believe that enough smaller states would approve this.
Small states joined the Union with certain guarantees to insure that large states would not overwhelm them.
Would they be allowed to peacefully secede?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
