Click the Dragon's Eggs
Don't Let the Dragons Eat You
Give what you can
Or donate monthly, and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
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 ...
And if those “little states” were all represented by blacks and illegals, Kalifornia would be just FINE with it!!!!
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...
Such an agreement between states needs to be approved by Congress.
Before the election it looked like Ohio would be about as close as Florida in 2000. After the election the 118,775 vote difference (the MSM like to quote 60,000 switches rather than nearly 120,000 difference) was beyond the Dems' creative counting plans so the teams of lawyers ready to come in just didn't show up. A 2% win by Bush was too much to change through post-election trickery.
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 would hate that. I think the grueling process of a 6+ month primary season allows us to really understand the character of the candidates. I doubt very much that Ronald Reagan (for example) would have ever received the nomination if the primary were a one-day "winner take all" event.
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.Since it's easier for a Republican to win the nationwide popular vote than it is for him to win the California vote, wouldn't this just make it more likely that the California Electoral votes would go to the Republican?
The popular vote issue came up in 2000 of course with Gore winning what votes had been counted by a very narrow margin. This is where the main motivation is coming from. The left feels the 2000 election was stolen by Bush and they will never let go of it. It was correctly pointed out here on FR that a very large number of votes in numerous states were left uncounted where the remaining number of votes would not have changed the way a state would have gone. If those had been counted Bush could have won the national popular vote but you never hear that from the frothing left.
Ayup. True dat.
This whole "popular vote movement" was always around, but it became official Democrat policy when Bush beat Gore. Keeping people focused on why we have the Electoral College vote system is the only remedy. It's not because we delegate our votes to our "betters." It's to make the Presidency a 50-state election. Nobody would ever bother trying to get votes in Caspar, Wyoming when the big coastal cities are where the votes are. The country would be even more bitterly divided than it is now.
At the time I pointed out to some Gorebot clown complaining about the Florida recount (This was before December 2000) that if he liked the Florida fiasco, he's just LOVE it if the recount was going on in all 50 states. Being a state-by-state affair erects firewalls between the states, so crap like the Florida recount stays in Florida.
And not thinks?
Here’s a prediction..as Obama’s poll numbers continue to implode, early next year you’re goign to see some think pieces that the only way Obama can win is by the elcetoral college, because he’s gonna loose the popular vote..then watch ALL these people do a 180...
It’s unconstitutional to me, because it effectively means that the several states have NO significance..
Rush Limbaugh could not have said it better.
No need to wait...just harken back to 2004 and Ohio.
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 method, 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.”
Of course, there is always the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court might change the legal standards concerning congressional consent contained in its 1893 and 1978 rulings. Some have argued, for example, that congressional intervention in what would otherwise be an exclusively state matter might be required if the compacting states exerted some kind of adverse “political” effect on non-compacting states. In a dissenting opinion, U.S. Supreme Court Justice White suggested, in U.S. Steel v. Multi-State Tax Commission, that courts could consider the possible adverse effects of a compact on non-compacting states in deciding whether congressional consent is required.
Because each state has independent power to award its electoral votes in the manner it sees fit, it is difficult to see what “adverse effect” might be claimed by one state from the decision of another state to award its electoral votes in a particular way. It is especially unclear what adverse “political” effect might be claimed, given that the National Popular Vote compact would treat votes cast in all 50 states and the District of Columbia equally. A vote cast in a compacting state is, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact does not confer any advantage on states belonging to the compact as compared to non-compacting states. A vote cast in a compacting state would be, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact certainly would not reduce the voice of voters in non-compacting states relative to the voice of voters in member states.
All of the large states must be broken up (for electoral purposes) such that no state (electoral district) can control more that 5% of the electoral college.
I am not aware of any Democratic Party official policy or endorsement of National Popular Vote. The National Popular Vote organization had its initial press conference in February 2006.
If the reason for the current Electoral College vote system is to make the Presidency a 50-state election, and try to get votes in Caspar, Wyoming, it’s doing a pretty poor job.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states, like Wyoming, and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, like Wyoming. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (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.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored —including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign,when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people, including Wyoming, have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states, like Wyoming, are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
A survey of 1,039 Wyoming voters conducted on January 4–5, 2011 showed 69% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?”
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 66% among Republicans, 77% among Democrats, and 72% among others. By gender, support was 76% among women and 62% among men. By age, support was 70% among 18-29 year olds, 68% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for those older than 65.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#WY_2011JAN
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
A nationwide recount would not happen. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and recount. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years under the National Popular Vote approach. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount, no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
If your a conservative in California voting is like dry sex. You think your doing something but it really doesn’t count.
California is controlled by homosexuals, public employees union, hollywood leftist, and mexicans (illegal or otherwise). and young morons. The black population is of diminishing influence even though they are solidly in the commie column when it comes to voting.
It is hopeless. The price you pay for the weather is extreme but I dont have so many years to live and no kids so will just gut it out and watch the remaining destruction.
A candidate has won the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide in 4 of the nation’s 56 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. And yes, some insider Republicans believe under the current system in 2012, President Obama could win the electoral vote without winning the popular vote. How would you feel about that?
Then you should want to see your vote actually count under the National Popular Vote.
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 in those states where elections are seen as a foregone conclusion. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that, only 7-14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about at least 72% of the voters— voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and in 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Now, policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing, too.
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.