Posted on 07/17/2011 11:24:59 AM PDT by thecodont
It's a complaint that arises every four years, then quickly fades: the disproportionate power a small number of states have over the presidential contest.
California lawmakers want to do something about it - in fact, they've tried for years, but were blocked by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. So just as they did in 2006 and 2008, legislators this week approved a proposal to make California relevant.
Here's how it works: California's electoral votes are awarded in a winner-take-all manner. If a presidential candidate wins the majority of popular votes in California, he or she gets all the state's 55 electoral votes. This legislation, already adopted in eight other states, would award the electoral votes of participating states to the candidate who wins the nation's popular vote.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/15/BAST1KAHH6.DTL#ixzz1SO4vkHdA
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
BULL. Democrats would just ramp up GOTV in megacities to tip the "national popular vote" those outside the megacities in select states would have their votes rendered meaningless. A high Democrat turnout in Los Angeles could tip a compact-joining state like Wyoming to match the popular vote even if the overwhelming numbers of Wyoming residents voted Republican.
It's insanity. The entire nation would be held hostage just as millions of Californians across a much wider portion of the state are held hostage by L.A. and S.F.
Do you think the Democrats elected to every statewide office in CA care about anywhere outside those two strong holds? They don't because they don't have to.
The Founders new exactly what they were doing when they set up the electoral college system rather than going for a president directly elected by popular vote. This "progressive" reform is a Democrat's wet dream.
Isn’t there a “not” missing before “count”?
This is coming from those that want a pure Democracy as opposed to the current Constitutional Republic. Something the Founding Fathers worked very hard to prevent. We started the destruction when Senators were moved from the State Legislators prevue into the democratic majority rule.
To give an example I remember when a Turnpike was to be built in Oklahoma, it was a democratic process, the Cities at either end voted in favor of taking the farmers land in between. See majority rule.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
“Massachusetts’ Electoral College votes would go to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, under a bill signed into law Wednesday by Gov. Deval Patrick.”
WTF???
“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.”
In layman's terms, this tells me that the actual words written in the Constitution don't really mean what they clearly state. I'm thinking that you've got to be a lawyer to understand this.
“The only changes I’d make at this time is closed primaries and convince all states to have their primary on the same day.”
I agree on both points! All primaries should be closed, and if they were on the same day as well, that’d solve a lot of problems, giving all candidates a fairer chance - both financially and psychologically - since there are so many ignorant voters who often go with the flow/trend of prior primaries.
I also detest in the general election how the time zone differences, due to the frantic media coverage and early winner declarations, influence tons of “me, too” voters in the western states to either go with whomever they see shaping up to be the winner or not even bother to vote because their choice was losing (often making it a self-fulfilling prophecy). It’d probably be a good idea if national media coverage didn’t start until the west coast polls closed. (Waiting for Hawaii would be asking too much :-)
How about we split the electoral votes by percentage?
“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.”
So which is it - a non-partisan issue that favors neither party, or “a way to help Conservative Republican candidates”?? And then the long list of Republican support percentages. Yet, elsewhere - “it is good for conservatives, it is good for California”.
HUH? Way too many contradictions, IMO.
There are a couple scenarios that probably have not been thought through on this:
1. In a two-way race, a candidate could theoretically WIN enough states to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold - YET, still LOSE the popular vote. Any states that he won [who are part of the compact] would then switch their votes and the other candidate MIGHT go over the top electorally.
2. In a three-way race, NONE of the candidates might get at least 50% of the popular vote AND NONE of them might reach the 270 electoral vote threshold - BUT, the leading candidate MIGHT receive compact states’ electoral votes from the others and could CONCEIVABLY go over the top. Kinda negates the provisions of Article II, Section I and the 12th Amendment concerning the selection of the President and Vice President when a plurality has NOT been reached.
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).
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)
Idaho(4) - 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Florida (29)- 88% (D), 68% (R), and 76% 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
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 7% 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 Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
Tennessee (11) —78% (D), 73% (R)
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://tinyurl.com/3oyeejj
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 is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO - 68%, FL - 78%, IA 75%,, MI - 73%, MO - 70%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM— 76%, NC - 74%, OH - 70%, PA - 78%, VA - 74%, and WI - 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE - 75%, ID - 77%, ME - 77%, MT - 72%, NE 74%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM - 76%, OK - 81%, RI - 74%, SD - 71%, UT - 70%, VT - 75%, WV - 81%, and WY - 69%; in Southern and border states: AR - 80%,, KY- 80%, MS - 77%, MO - 70%, NC - 74%, OK - 81%, SC - 71%, TN - 83%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should get elected.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes — 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Under National Popular Vote, every vote in every state would be included in the national count, attained from adding the results of all of the states’ Certificates of Ascertainment. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states plus DC would receive all of the electoral votes of the states that have enacted the National Popular Vote bill (at least 270 when it goes into effect). States not in the compact, would award electoral votes based on their state laws. The 270 electoral votes from National Popular Vote enacting states, guarantee the candidate with the most votes in the whole country receives the majority of electoral votes needed to win the Presidency.
Article II, section 1 of the Constitution, stipulates that in the event of no candidate getting at least 270 electoral college votes, the House of Representatives decides who will be president.
With National Popular Vote this would never happen, because the compact always represents a bloc consisting of a majority of the electoral votes. Thus, an election for President would never be thrown into the House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote) and an election for Vice President would never be thrown into the Senate (with each Senator casting one vote).
Just be aware that mvymvy is a lying seminar posting liberal troll attempting to manufacture consent all over the net.
The exact same comments can be found in over 120 different forums. (see post 76)
Mvymvy posted a truncated quote from Bush v. Gore that stated the selection of electors by states was plenary.
I called him on it and published the FULL quote that had a caveat - that once the vote is granted to citizenry, 14th Amendment equal protection applies and the state CANNOT value one voter's vote over another. Meaning, you CANNOT change a person's vote [which is what the NPV Compact basically does].
He had NO ANSWER for that ...
My state, Missouri, was not one of them.
No need to send me these lengthy lists again - I saw them the first few times in your posts.
Thanks, CC. See my latest reply back to him after he bombarded me with more of these lengthy BS “approval” lists.
In my opinion, the need to post the same stuff all over the net under different names shows a lack of true support for his ideas.
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.