Democrat Legislators Select To Invalidate Washington’s National Vote

by lewwaters

democratic_seal In a late night session in Olympia, Washington’s Democrat led House voted to pass and adopt Senate Bill 5599, “Approving the entry of Washington into the agreement among the states to elect the president by national popular vote.”

In essence, this is a move to do away with the Electoral College, which actually selects the President every election based upon how each individual state votes.

In actuality, this “National Vote” referendum turns the selection of our Presidency over to those heaviest populated states that will receive the most attention from candidates, as they will forgo visits and campaigning in lesser-populated states that will no longer matter.

In reality, this is just one more example of sour grapes from Democrats who haven’t gotten over the narrow loss of Al Gore to George W. Bush in the 2000 Florida election and who wish to ensure that their votes count more than those of Republicans.

Since Democrats retook Congress in the 2006 election and seized the White House in the 2008 election, there has been a rapid move to dismantle and invalidate several sections and provisions of our constitution that might challenge their dictatorial powers in the future, including the fair representation of each individual state in selecting the Presidency.

Not unexpected, Clark Counties Jim Jacks and Jim Moeller both voted ‘yea,’ invalidating your future votes when not for Democrats.

Not too unsurprising, a public vote will not be forthcoming on this important change to our voting structure.

As Representative Ed Orcutt said,

This is a huge fundamental change in how our Founding Fathers set up this country. The Electoral College, while sometimes difficult to understand, was set up as a way to protect smaller states from the whims of a handful of high-population states.”

“With this bill, we’re giving away our voice and our votes to other states. This is fundamentally wrong.”

Due to the ignorance of the average voter on the brilliance of the Electoral College, many have been convinced that it denies the rightful winner of the Presidential election their rightful office. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In most presidential elections the vote is far enough apart that the Electoral College vote is nothing more than a mere formality. Only 3 other times in the history of our nation has the Electoral College been called upon to perform as designed and given the office to one who did not win the popular National Vote before the 2000 election, which independent recounts show actually was won by President Bush.

Not unsurprising is our own Columbians disdain for this system, which was acknowledged by CCC at The Columbian’s Ignorance About The Electoral College and is shown once again in their exuberance on the passage of this measure in today’s editorial Legislature sends Electoral College reform measure to governor for signature.

Clark County Conservative maintains that had the 2000 election been reversed and the Electoral Vote went to Democrat Al Gore instead of to Republican George W. Bush, this would not be an issue at all and the effectiveness of the Electoral College would be lauded.

The Columbian editor who wrote this piece claims, “As we have editorialized often, this is undemocratic and un-American,” in regards to the Electoral Vote at times going against the National Popular vote. I fail to see how something written into our constitution is either “undemocratic or un-American.”

Then again, Democrats have repeatedly shown they have little use for our constitution for some time now. Not educating the public about the true worthiness of the Electoral Collegeis just one example of the Sour Grapes held since 2000 and the disdain for our constitution as they continue in their efforts to dismantle it.

The Columbian also tells us,

Washingtonians largely support this common-sense reform. Four months ago, a statewide poll of 800 voters by the national firm Public Policy Polling showed that 77 percent wanted the leading vote-getter to win the presidency.”

We are not informed as to the demographics of those “800” out of a population of well over 6,000,000, leaving the claim at best questionable.

Our liberties and constitution are being withered away before our very eyes and justified by those Democrats who are openly transforming a free nation into a Socialist one. Not only are they bankrupting the nation under every increasing massive indebtedness to foreign countries, we have direct assaults on our liberties, while the newly elected president embraces those in foreign lands who despise our nation as much as he does and alienates our long-standing allies.

Spineless Republicans failed to stand up for our rights and too often joined the Democrats in dismantling our liberties.

If you value our freedom and liberty, it is time to take a stand and identify those candidates who support our constitution and get behind them to elect them to office, at all levels.

We must take back America in order to pass along the freedoms we enjoyed to our children and grandchildren.

12 Responses to “Democrat Legislators Select To Invalidate Washington’s National Vote”

  1. The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Washington is not one. 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. Similarly, in 2004, 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. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule 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.

    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, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

    Like

  2. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

    The bill is currently endorsed by 1,512 state legislators in 48 states.

    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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 26 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

    Like

  3. What the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution is “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, that the voters may vote and the 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, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.

    In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.

    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 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.

    As a result of changes in state laws, 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 winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.

    The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

    Like

  4. 77% OF WASHINGTON VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL

    A survey of 800 Washington state voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

    Support was 77% among independents, 85% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.

    By age, support was 80% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.

    By gender, support was 84% among women and 69% among men.

    By race, support was 78% among whites (representing 87% of respondents), 57% among African-Americans (representing 4% of respondents), 60% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 78% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).

    see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

    Like

  5. The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.

    Small states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).

    Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.

    The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York’s use of winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming–both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.

    The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive”in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

    In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.

    Like

  6. The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that 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.

    Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert 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 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 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 votes for Bush in 2004.

    Like

  7. When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, 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.

    Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.

    Like

  8. Wow, Susan, 7 comments just to say you want Democrats to always win?

    Your eloquent and verbose copy and paste sounds very fanciful, but as is usual, the direct opposite of what appears.

    As you note, candidates avoided smaller Electoral States in favor of heavier populated states now. If only a popular vote, they would totally avoid those states and focus solely on the larger states that would carry them, plain an simple, without the smaller states chiming in.

    Candidates would not just go on TV to campaign nationally, they would still need to make personal appearances and would focus mostly on those heaviest populated states.

    I refer you back to the editorial quote linked in my post above, “The Electoral College made sense when the nation’s Founding Fathers designed it to make sure large population centers would not run roughshod over more sparsely populated areas.”

    I fail to see how you miss that the majority of our population is still settled in those larger states.

    Our 2004 Governor’s race disproves your claim of larger cities cannot carry an election. Seattle and King County did just that in the many recounts. If states had an Electoral college system by county, I think the outcome would have been very different.

    One thing for sure, it is doubtful that King County would have kept “finding” misplaced ballots.

    Some more perils that can be found here

    Majority fraud: running up the vote
    The direct election system is subject to types of fraud that are impossible under the Electoral College system. With direct elections, there would be an incentive for Nebraska to produce more Republican votes or Massachusetts more Democratic ones. Majority fraud would be hard to combat, because the majority party would also be responsible for counting the votes.

    The Electoral College system concedes some states to the party in power, but it eliminates any reason to run up the vote. Any fraud in the present system must be in swing states, where the parties can keep each other in check.

    Swamped with candidates

    The winner-take-all feature of the Electoral College system discourages third party efforts. In contrast, a direct election system encourages candidates to run, simply because they can. The apparent voter choice among a huge number of candidates is a dangerous illusion. In practice, well organized minorities have a very good chance to achieve the highest or second-highest share, advancing to a run off round. While the Electoral College tends to produce candidates that look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee, direct election could produce a choice between Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson or Jesse Ventura and Jesse Jackson.

    Of course, this is not all inclusive, just a couple potential pitfalls.

    As I see it, based upon my Amry days, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

    Can you honestly say you would not think the Electoral System is working as designed, had Al Gore won in 2000 by the slim margin Bush did in Florida?

    If you really feel a National Popular vote is best, may I suggest you study some of the former Soviet Unions elections.

    It may be a confusing system to many, but our founders gave us a brilliant compromise with it that has served the country well for two centuries.

    It’s long past time for you all to get over the 2000 election. Bush won fair and square and would have even without the Supreme Court stepping in to stop Florida Democrats from changing election laws midstream to favor Gore.

    There has been more than enough voter fraud in the last few elections. Conveniently, Democrats won. And we still see the sour grapes.

    In closing, I’m an old man who works 14 hours a day. I’d appreciate it if you kept your copy and pastes to a single comment square, thanks.

    Like

  9. If I remember correctly, Dan Odgen, who could hardly be considered a Republican, has repeately emphasized the roots and continued need for the Electorial College. He was likely teaching these points to college students before many of us posting here were born. This is not a partisan issue.

    Like

  10. It Should not be a partisan issue, Pat. But, if you look at the votes on this, it has become a partisan issue apparently.

    The Electoral College has served the country well, but there are those who cannot get past it serving as designed in 2000 and who wish to abolish it in favor of the direct National Popular Vote, the exact opposite of what I see our founders left us.

    Popular vote works well in state and local elections, but only the presidency represents all states and all states deserve a say in who wins.

    Looking at how some of the larger states have voted their states into near oblivion, are we so sure we could trust their selection of president?

    Like

Trackbacks

%d bloggers like this: