Posted on 07/17/2011 11:24:59 AM PDT by thecodont
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, it is good for California, and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.
National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . .Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it.”
http://tinyurl.com/3z5brge
Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), and former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.
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.
http://tinyurl.com/46eo5ud
Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote “ include:
Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.
James Brulte is a Republican who 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.
By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:
Alaska (3) — 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters
Arkansas (6) — 71% (R), 79% (Independents).
California (55)– 61% (R), 74% (I)
Colorado (9) — 56% (R), 70% (I).
Connecticut (7) — 67% (R)
Delaware (3) — 69% (R), 76% (I)
DC (3) — 48% (R), 74% of (I)
Idaho(4) - 75% (R)
Florida (29) — 68% (R)
Iowa (6) — 63% (R)
Kentucky (8) — 71% (R), 70% (I)
Maine (4) - 70% (R)
Massachusetts (11) — 54% (R)
Michigan (16) — 68% (R), 73% (I)
Minnesota (10) — 69% (R)
Mississippi (6) — 75% (R)
Nebraska (5) — 70% (R)
Nevada (5) — 66% (R)
New Hampshire (4) — 57% (R), 69% (I)
New Mexico (5) — 64% (R), 68% (I)
New York (29) - 66% (R), 78% Independence, 50% Conservative
North Carolina (15) — 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), 80% (I)
Ohio (18) — 65% (R)
Oklahoma (7) — 75% (R)
Oregon (7) — 70% (R), 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20) — 68% (R), 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4) — 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), 78% (I),
South Carolina (8) — 64% (R)
South Dakota (3) — 67% (R)
Tennessee (11) — 73% (R)
Utah (6) — 66% (R)
Vermont (3) — 61% (R)
Virginia (13) — 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 54% conservative (R)
Washington (12) — 65% (R)
West Virginia (5) — 75% (R)
Wisconsin (10) — 63% (R), 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) –66% (R), 72% (I)
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php
It does not say the Legislature can delegate the manner of the selection of the Electors to the citizens of other states.
I am not a Constitutional Scholar, nor do I pretend to be the President. Just a reader and observer. As my first post in this thread mentions above, the good liberals of CA would have been frothing at the mouth to wake up Wednesday morning after the 2004 election to find their state had elected George Bush's Electors, based on the results of the hicks in flyover country.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws 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, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained 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.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing 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.
Senator Birch Bayh (D-Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, “one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes.”
Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .
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, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?”
You aren’t fooling anyone here. You’re a seminar poster who posts the same garbage here and in any number of newgroups around the nation.
Ellie light incarnate.
Your analysis of “who benefits” is compelling. I hope the Constitution trumps that, but we’ll see.
mvymvy is an Obamaton seminar poster. Think Ellie Light.
mobocracy through initiative and recall is largely responsible for Cali's dysfunctional government, where the sheeple vote for more services, but against the taxes to pay for them.
we live in representative republic, which mediated between the tyranny of the mob, and that of a centralized tyranny. Of course, Californicators are too stupid to realize that, hence their need to cry and use relics of the progressive era (initiative and recall) if the votes in the legislature don't go their way.
In 2008, the Michigan House of Representatives passed the identical bill, as introduced all 50 states, by a 65-36 margin. The bill is a compact between states, that must be identical in all states. There is A standard withdrawal mechanism for all states.
The bill says: “Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”
The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.
There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.
I have a better idea!
Hang anyone who steals a vote. Simple.
“Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?”
The above comment can be found at....
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2010/08/jason-cabel-roe-npv.html
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/national-popular-vote-plan-would-hurt-most-states-2/
http://www.exposeobama.com/2011/06/25/national-popular-vote-plan-would-hurt-most-states/
http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/2011/07/inside-opinion/minority-rule/
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/humphrey/2011/05/thompson-to-lead-group-pushing.html
Fascinating observation. A look at that person's FR posting history is page after page after page of lengthy posts, all of them about this particular subject. A regular one-trick pony.
Under National Popular Vote every vote in every presidential election in every state would be counted equally and for the candidate, unlike now. Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, and included in the national count that determines the candidate with the most popular votes, who then is guaranteed the majority of electoral votes needed to win the presidency. It gives a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
In Bush v. Gore in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:
“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 … that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary.
Far from denying or abridging “the right to vote in presidential elections for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,” the National Popular Vote compact actually establishes the people’s right to vote for President in compacting states. Article II of the compact states.
“Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.”
Dividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person’s vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws(whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.
In 2008, the National Popular Vote bill was introduced by Representatives Vernon Sykes, Barbara Boyd. Edna Brown, Tom Letson, John Otterman, Michael Skindell, and Sandra Williams -
HB 524.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
Remember, 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.
In Bush v. Gore in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:
“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 … that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary.
Far from denying or abridging “the right to vote in presidential elections for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,” the National Popular Vote compact actually establishes the people’s right to vote for President in compacting states. Article II of the compact states.
“Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.”
This is the only way you’ll see CA Electorial College votes go to a Republican.
I am sorry, but since you are an obvious ringer and a troll, I will always scroll right past your posts. I simply did not read what you just wrote to me. Sorry.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a “republican” form of government or is a “democracy.”
In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
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.