My brother-from-another-mother ZerCool sent me this local story about efforts in my lovely state to end the electoral college, something his former junior senator proposed some ten years ago.
Here's the scariest part:
Under the proposed law, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.Got that? Nationally. A candidate who pours all of their money into New York City, Chicago, LA, and Austin - and nowhere else - could conceivably win the 12 electoral votes from MA without a single vote cast for them in MA. Doesn't that strike anyone as a little odd? Of course, there's also this bit of irony:
Supporters of the change say that the current Electoral College system is confusing and causes candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states.And giving the electoral votes from the state of MA to the winner of the popular vote nationwide won't do this because... why now? If anything, it'll make things worse, as candidates will focus on only the largest cities in the largest states - the elections will be decided based on a dozen or so cities. Which, as you might guess, are blue strongholds...
Gee, it's not to hard to figure this out, then:
Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already adopted the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website.Imagine that. Support is coming entirely from Democrat-leaning states. Where did I put my shocked face, again? This is, quite simply, nothing more than a raw, naked power grab here by the Dems. They're not even trying to hide it any more.
It's almost like they want to tear this country apart...
That is all.
15 comments:
It's almost like they want to tear this country apart...
UH,.,,HELLO??? Ya think!!!!
I am still "PISSED".. :)
Gotta love it. And don't forget the rush to switch back to the old way if a republican wins the popular vote. . . we don't want to be a red state do we?
This is, quite simply, nothing more than a raw, naked power grab here by the Dems.
More specifically, it's a reaction to the 2000 presidential election. The "dump the Electoral College" screwballs have been around for years, but the Florida 2000 debacle really kicked them into high gear. They're all liberal True Believers who have swallowed the swill about the Permanent Democratic Majority, and want to make sure that it's impossible for those damn consie redneck scum to interfere with their fascist takeover. They still think Gore was robbed by a biased Florida government and a corrupt Supreme Court. Gore won the nationwide popular vote, therefore he should've been president.
This. This is why I have started prepping in a serious fashion.
Eventually these bastards are going to overstep.
Smooth.
Now your state electors will base their vote on everyone else, and not residents of your state. Sure seems to be the trend as of late anyway.
If the electoral college is too hard to understand? Yeah, when you think USA is a democracy the EC doesn't make sense. But it's not, and it does.
These guys don't seem to be as smart as they think they are. Lots of folks live in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona.
They should take a look at what redistricting will do to the MA congressional delegation before they go off all half cocked.
When we moved here from Atlanta in 2002, Atlanta metro area was as big as Boston metro area. Now Atlanta is 15% bigger.
Do the math, libtards ...
But I'd sure like to see the Constitutional Convention where they propose this. Got a couple of suggestions in my back pocket.
Problem with that, Borepatch, is that Austin, Atlanta, and even Phoenix are overwhelmingly liberal.
Look at the red/blue map. *ALL* cities are little blue hotbeds.
With this sort of centralization, all a savvy candidate has to do to win is to have crews in the top 10-15 cities "getting the vote out".
You know, like they did in WI in 2000, where they were giving Smokes for votes...
"If the electoral college is too hard to understand? Yeah, when you think USA is a democracy the EC doesn't make sense. But it's not, and it does."
Exactly.
People don't understand that the President was supposed to be elected by the states, not the general population. Each state is and has always been allowed to decide the method for how it's electoral votes are allocated - by popular vote, by the legislature, even unilaterally by the governor if that's what the state wants.
We have seriously unbalanced the republic by effectively silencing the states' voices in the federal government. This is why we see things like states passing laws exempting their citizens from the required coverage provisions of Obamacare and Arizona's immigration enforcement bill, in defiance of the fedgov. The states are expressing their wishes to the feds the only way they have left to them.
This is a failure of the education system - they teach that the US is a democracy, rather than a republic, and the institutions of a republic don't make sense in a democracy. They also don't teach the dangers of a true democracy, and why the country was set up as a republic in the first place. And so we are slowly turning ourselves into a democracy, with all the dangers that come with it.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states 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. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but now used 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 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Massachusetts and 12 of the 13 smallest states were NOT included. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.
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 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
The political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support , hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
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 in name recognition as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all rules, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
A survey of 800 Massachusetts voters conducted on May 23-24, 2010 showed 72% 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 86% among Democrats, 54% among Republicans, and 68% among others. By gender, support was 85% among women and 60% among men. By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.
Massachusetts voters were also asked a 3-way question:
"Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the state's electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?"
The results of this three-way question were that 68% favored a national popular vote, 16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district, and 16% favored the existing statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
www.NationalPopularVote.com
If the Electoral College was good enough for Gen. Washington (PBUH), it's good enough for me.
Of course, I would like it if everyone had to fill out the forms to register to vote that we have to do to purchase a Firearm. Wonder how many could pass the background check for residency/citizenship?
I will admit that a Constitutional Amendment putting PERMANENT TERM LIMITS on ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS would be nice.
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.
Post a Comment