no electoral college pretty much means no representation for states like Road Island, Idaho and other states with small populations
Posted on 07/24/2010 8:33:10 AM PDT by jbjd
...I assured you, enacting and enforcing state election laws to keep Constitutionally ineligible candidates off November’s Presidential (Electors) ballot would prevent Electors from exercising their discretion to elect a Constitutionally unqualified candidate in December because as long as people mistakenly think they vote for President in the general election, Electors would never dare to vote for someone whose name had not appeared on that state’s ballot.
Scratch that. Because now, they might have to. That is, if John R. Koza’s National Popular Vote Initiative (“NPVI”) is adopted by the requisite number of states. And proponents of the NPV are poised to pull off passage by enough states, before 2012. Because most Americans remain clueless as to exactly how we elected our President in 2008. Especially when it comes to the role of our Presidential Electors...
(Thankfully, Professor Lowenstein has identified what I agree is a fatal Constitutional flaw in the NPV plan, which certainly would forestall implementation of such a plan at least until after the 2012 elections. Phew!)
With all this in mind, here is my new mantra about maintaining the President’s Constitutional qualifications for office throughout the electoral process:
If the requisite number of states pass the National Popular Vote law before the 2012 Presidential election; even keeping the name of an unqualified candidate off the ballot no longer guarantees he will not get the job, unless the courts forestall implementation.
(Excerpt) Read more at jbjd.wordpress.com ...
Somebody will be along shortly to tell you to go back to sleep.
Personally I take it seriously.
I say that IF a majority of states pass this initiative then MY state refuse to recognize a President chosen by this method, especially if the old method (the electorial college) would have chosen a different person!
0bama must be in some serious trouble.
no electoral college pretty much means no representation for states like Road Island, Idaho and other states with small populations
Couldn’t the states not participating in the “Compact” withhold their vote counts? That would make it difficult for the “Compact” states to appoint their electors based on a nationwide vote.
That’s a good question! I would have to go back to check what is the mechanism by which states within the compact receive vote totals from states not a part of the compact. Obviously, without a popular vote total, the compact states wouldn’t know where to throw their Electoral votes.
If enough states pass this NPV to reach 270 electoral votes then, even if a state is not in the compact, as you say, it is essentially compelled to play by compact rules. Not fair; and, I believe, unConstitutional.
I agree in this case, I found the timing for the big push for NPV suspect. But I cannot let R’s off the hook; not only have several R’s supported this faulty initiative but also, R’s have failed to take other affirmative steps to ‘out’ the fraud of the 2008 election. I think they realize, next time, they could pull off fraud to elect themselves. But clearly, the mission of the R’s is not to educate citizens or fix a faulty electoral system. So, in my book, that makes them D’s.
YES. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Do these people think all of us are too stupid to understand, one person / one vote only works in a Democracy and then, only if all voters can fit into a meeting hall. Did you watch the videos on my blog, explaining the Electors? One of them shows the origins in ancient Rome, where groups of 100 men - rich, poor, soldiers, farmers - each got 1 vote. Because they saw the value in ‘mixing it up’ so as to give equal weight to disparately situated citizens. (’Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.’)
Seems that “Compact” States want the non “Compact” States to tell them their popular vote count.
Not if a state “opts out of the results”..aka they would essentially be Seceeding from the union, but better that than an illigal grab of power, I say!..
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/certificates_of_ascertainment.html
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html
Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts, successful candidates will continue to 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 . It would no longer matter who won a state.
Now the state-by-state winner-take-all laws awarding electoral votes, do not protect small states against large ones. Swing states dominate. In the 2008 election, both major presidential candidates spent 98% of their time and money in only 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI), and over 50% in just 4 (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Only 15 states out of 50 were in play. Only voters in those 15 got attention. Issues that play well in those 15 states get excessive focus. Voters in those 15 states have hugely disproportionate influence over who will be our President, while voters in 35 states have no influence on who their next President will be. Under National Popular Vote, swing states would lose their excessive power because all votes, in every state, would count equally.
Now the state-by-state winner-take-all Electoral College always ignores the smallest states (3-4 electoral votes). 12 of the 13 smallest states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. Eight state legislative chambers in the smallest states have passed the bill. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): “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.”
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 rule) 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.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (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 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 rule.
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 rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
seems to me that calf has more voters than lets say six states combined, i don't think it has more electoral votes than those combine six do so if several RAT states have enough RAT voters to negate voters in other states, popular voting is a hindrance because as i see it, that's where the electoral votes come into play
if i read it right, using 100 as an example, if a RAT state has 60 RAT votes, 41RAT votes nullify it's own state Republican votes, add one, then the other 19 go on to nullify votes in other states under the popular voting system
The ascertainment has to be delivered on or before the day the electoral vote is made. Maybe “Compact” states will have to send 2 slates of electors if they can do that.
I am not sure what is your point; but I think you are saying, given that the SCOTUS has confirmed states have comprehensive rights to appoint Electors, the proposed NPVI is lawful. I disagree; and so does Professor Lowenstein, UCLA (LAW). See, regardless of whether a state’s Appointment of its own Electors can be said to be consistent with the Constitution; the Constitution definitely does not say, one state can ‘pick’ the Electors of another. And by compelling Electors to cast their votes in accordance with the votes in other states, the NPV law essentially converts one state’s Electors into Electors acting as if they were Appointed by another. The state has no legal right under its plenary authority, to give away its Electors.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): “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.”
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.