The Columbian’s Hate Fest With the Electoral College

by lewwaters

Seems once again, the responsibility of educating the college indoctrinated editorial board at the Columbian, the unofficial daily newsletter for the Democrat Party, falls on a regular High School Graduate. Every so often they seem to feel they are smarter than the framers of our constitution and founders of this great federal Republic, the United States of America. They are far from it.

The Columbian has a long history of hate towards the Electoral College system of selecting our President. It matters little to them that the system has worked just fine since its inception at the founding of our country, 4 times doing as designed to represent the will of the states and not the majority of people, the Columbian editorial board runs editorial after editorial bashing it, admitted to by editorial page editor John Laird as “one of my favorite crusades: bashing the Electoral College” in an October 12, 2008 editorial.

Anybody paying attention knows the left has been unhinged ever since Al Gore lost the presidency in 2000 to George W. Bush in an Electoral Victory, even though Gore received more votes. But as said above, selection of the presidency was never designed to be by popular vote across the nation, but by the sum of the states. As the electoral map below shows, the sum total of the states clearly preferred Bush over Gore and the Electoral College kicked in, giving the presidency to Bush, thankfully.

Editors at the Columbian were among those Democrats who were unhinged over our constitution working as designed. Then editorial page editor Michael Heywood penned on December 22, 2000, “Surrounded by symbols of peace on Earth and good will to all men, even the most intransigent among us can find it difficult maintaining a sharp edge of bitter anger about such outrages as the coup that will see George Walker Bush inaugurated as president of the United States 18 days hence.”

January 21, 2001, right after President Bush’s inauguration, Heywood ended his editorial with, “However rough his path will be in contrast to the smoothly orchestrated first hours, the nation joins in wishing President Bush the very best.”

Where he concocted well wishes is unknown as history has documented, from the certification of the Electoral Votes, Democrats lined up in opposition, many Democrats walking out of Congress in protest during the ceremonial counting of the electoral votes on January 6, 2001.

The Columbian even let us know that local Democrats planned to protest outside of the County Courthouse right after Bush was to be inaugurated, quoting one of the protests organizers, Gary Akizuki, “We believe the Florida vote would have favored (Vice President Al) Gore and he, not Bush, would be taking the oath of office Saturday.”

That canard was put to rest by none other than the New York Times later in the year when they ran, Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote as the cry grew that the Electoral College system was at fault and the rancor grew and continues today.

While John Laird leads the charge with comments once like, “There can never be anything wrong with the leading vote-getter winning an election. Not in a democracy or a representative republic. Ever. The sanctity of this principle is upheld in every national election (involving candidates) except one: the decision on who will become the world’s most powerful person,” penned in June 2011, editor Lou Brancaccio has joined in the crusade with editorials Saturday October 6, 2012 and October 13, 2012, the latter largely focusing on yours truly for opposing the doing away with the Electoral College in many of the Columbian editorial rants.

Perhaps John Laird will one day enlighten us on just what other “national elections including candidates” there is besides the Presidency that the nation votes on.

Then too, the comment displays the mentality of those who think they are smarter and more intelligent than our founding fathers were.

The Columbian’s hate fest with the founding fathers took a twist in 2008 as they ran an article focusing on a 1948 editorial bashing the Electoral College.

Brancaccio’s effort seems largely focused on informing us that due to the electoral system, our votes don’t count as h began his Oct. 6 editorial with, “You know all that stuff you hear about how your vote counts? It’s a lie. There, I said it. It ain’t pretty. It ain’t politically correct. But it’s true.”

Well no, as a matter of fact, it isn’t true. While our vote does not directly elect the president, our votes do determine who will be selected electoral delegates to vote in the Electoral College.

Brancaccio goes further in a reply to the comment left by Martin Hash in the latter editorial, “If you live in Washington your vote will mean nothing with the Electoral College in play. Obama will take all the Electoral votes no matter what you do.”

A couple points for our Junior High School Civics Challenged local editor, we are one of 48 states that determine electors by a ‘winner take all’ electoral tally. Our state legislature can change that if they wanted to and go to an apportioned elector tally.

Instead, in 2009 the Democrat majority in our state elected to join a coalition that the Columbian says “would essentially bypass the Electoral College and assure the leading national vote-getter of winning presidential elections.”

Another point, it does not mean that our votes do not count, something the Democrats have long sought, negating opposition votes, it means you did not have enough votes agreeing with you, for any variety of reasons.

Since our Junior High School Civics Challenged editors seem to have slept through that class, it needs to be said that the presidency was not intended to be a direct vote of the people, but a vote representing states themselves. Four years ago this blog attempted to educate those who think they are smarter than our founders, apparently to no avail.

In July 2008 Jeff Jacoby’s editorial The brilliance of the Electoral College appeared in the Boston Globe. Jacoby rightfully noted the founders “rejected ‘pure democracy,’ as James Madison explained explained in Federalist No. 10. They knew that with ‘nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual,’ blind majoritarianism can become as great a menace to liberty as any king or dictator. The term ‘tyranny of the majority’ was coined for good reason.”

As the close vote in Florida in 2000 was unfolding, George Will defended the Electoral College against the cries of Electoral Abolitionists with a very informative article as well.

Liberal Democrats want to impose a permanent one party rule under their socialist ideals and are leading the charge to circumvent the constitution in presidential elections.

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 laid out one of the best reasons for an Electoral College system with, “A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment.” — Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787.

The 2008 election proves that beyond any shadow of doubt, even though they won an Electoral victory as well.

Our Founding Fathers devised brilliant manner in which the lesser populated states gained a more even voice in selecting who leads the country. I see no reason we should give the heaviest populated states more voice than they already have.

The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, contains the anecdote on p. 618, “A lady asked Dr. Benjamin Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

Some of us are trying to keep it and others, like the Columbian are trying to tear it down.

Vote wisely this election.

25 Comments to “The Columbian’s Hate Fest With the Electoral College”

  1. Seems to me that the Bush victory over Gore is the strongest argument anyone could ever make in keeping the Electoral College. God only knows what Gore would have invented had he became president.

    Like

  2. There will be crying at The Columbian when Obozo gets his miserable ass thrown out of public housing by a landslide on election day. I would love to be a fly on the wall on that day.It will be Delicious.

    Like

  3. It is certainly a symptom of their fringe-left arrogance that they actually believe their bizarre judgment to exceed that of the Framers.

    Like

  4. If we use a popular vote, a recount will involve ALL 50 (57?) states!
    What a nightmare of suddenly found ballots in Seattle & Chicago!

    Look at the Electoral College as a firewall to confine fraud to a few regions.

    Thanks
    JK

    Like

  5. With the clarity of the red/blue map above one can easily see why the electoral college is necessary. The vast majority of land is moderate to sparsly populated and deals with a great variety of issues not common in the urban centers. The urban centers tend to lean democrat while the borders and spanses are drastically more conservative. The large mass of this country requires proper representation of each state in order to allow the urban center to continue to prosper.

    Like

  6. The electoral college was a way to balance the power between big states and small states, between urban and rural. Our forefathers carefully made sure there would not be the tyranny of the majority both in the way Congress is comprised of representation in the house by population and equal representation per state in the Senate and by the electoral college.

    We need to retain the electoral college.

    Like

  7. The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing 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.

    National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

    The closest popular-vote election in American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    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 system offers voter suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

    Like

  8. The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

    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 (averaging only 274 votes); 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.

    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.

    We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a 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 with the National Popular Vote. 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 common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.

    Like

  9. The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

    The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

    The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

    The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were 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 for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states 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.”

    The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

    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. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

    The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in 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

  10. The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

    The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. That majority of Electoral College votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

    National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

    National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

    And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don’t matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

    The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters 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). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

    With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

    Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

    Like

  11. If you support the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, then you are mistaken The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

    Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 80% of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now. In 2008, presidential campaigns spent 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they were not hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and could win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state. 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored. That’s over 85 million voters, 200 million Americans. Once the conventions are over, presidential candidates now don’t visit or spend resources in 80% of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.

    With national popular vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.

    Like

  12. Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored.

    None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored.

    Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

    Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue.

    Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

    In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

    Of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes) 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states – NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) – got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

    In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

    Like

  13. With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes!

    But 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.

    Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, 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. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

    Like

  14. With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
    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 far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

    If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

    A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

    The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

    With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

    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.

    Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

    There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., NY, IL, MI, PA, and MA) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

    Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would 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 Walmart mom voters in Ohio.

    Like

  15. Support for a national popular vote remained steady, at 77% overall, after the National Popular Vote Bill was signed by Washington Governor Chris Gregoire. A survey of Washington state voters showed 77% 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. This 77% support level is the same overall percentage registered on the identical question in a December 2–3, 2008 poll in Washington. Percentages by subgroups were similar in both polls.

    By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in the May 2009 poll was 88% among Democrats, 65% among Republicans, and 73% among others.

    By gender, support in the May 2009 poll was 85% among women and 67% among men.

    By age, support in the May 2009 poll was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.

    An additional question was asked in which respondents were asked to make a three-way choice among three alternative methods for awarding the state’s electoral votes, with the following results:

    73% favored a national popular vote;
    16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district (as is currently done in Maine and Nebraska); and
    11% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

    NationalPopularVote

    Like

  16. The NPV creates a hollow sham of the Electoral College the framers of the constitution created when establishing the constitution.

    Under it, quoted directly from their website, “Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).”

    In other words, should the voters in Washington State select Obama again, the likely outcome, and Romney win the Popular Vote, another likely outcome, all of Washington States electoral votes are awarded to Romney, disenfranchising Washington States voters.

    Our founders were explicit that the president was not to be selected by a popular vote of the people, but the combined will of the entire states as they were added.

    The presidency is the only election we have where all of the states chime in, unlike every other state which is for matters or representation of that particular state.

    The NPV does not preserve the Electoral System established by the founders, but eliminates its original intent.

    NPV is nothing more than another attempt at creating a one party rule and eliminates any chance of a third party rising to prominence.

    You may convince younger people who didn’t receive a decent education in our founders intent or the reasons why we went with a Electoral system, but you’ll never convince people with their eyes open.

    Good luck getting enough states to ratify such an amendment, once they realize they are silencing their own voices.

    Like

  17. The reform needed for the electoral college is that the electoral college votes in each state should be proportional to the vote. One or two states do this, while most give all votes to whomever gets the most votes while other candidates get none.

    Like

  18. I agree Nathan, but that was left up to individual states to implement.

    Instead of a campaign to eliminate more of our separation of powers through the NPV, the campaign should be to lobby state legislatures to apportion electors.

    Like

  19. A pig with NPV lipstick is still a pig.

    The Framer’s got it right. And excepting the Bush hangover, there’s no reason for these people to be pushing any of this.

    Like

  20. They’ve been pushing to do away with our separation of powers pretty much the onset of the nation. But, Bush’s very legitimate win in 2000 has really fueled the Democrats to mislead the nation and build support even more. They have tried over 700 times now.

    The left does everything they can to mask that the framers never wanted the president chosen by a popular vote, but by a body of electors of the individuals states. It’s the states to be represented, not the majority of people, as designed.

    The NPV would leave us an Electoral College in name only.

    Like

  21. Vote correctly everybody and we may never have to deal with this violation of our constitution.

    Like

  22. National Popular Vote is not an amendment. It is a state bill.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states 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.”

    The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

    With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

    The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

    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, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (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, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 will not reach out to about 80% 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.

    80% of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.

    Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

    The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

    No one would be disenfranchised.

    The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

    With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

    National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

    And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don’t matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

    With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

    Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

    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 for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent 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 Small 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: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

    Most Americans don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it’s wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    NationalPopularVote

    Like

  23. Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

    If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

    The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

    If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

    A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

    It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

    Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

    A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

    Like

  24. s e (@oldgulph), if you wish to discuss the National Popular Vote, do so with your own words and supporting links.

    Stop copying and pasting websites

    The NPV is a subversion of our constitution, the framers intent and promises to be a mega nightmare if implemented.

    “Instead of trying to abolish the electoral college through a constitutional amendment — which small states might block — National Popular Vote devised a way to get around it: States agree by law to cast all of their electoral votes for the first-place finisher in the national popular vote; and the law becomes operative as soon as it is adopted by enough states to total 270 votes in the electoral college.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/electoral-college-may-not-be-popular-but-it-works/2012/01/23/gIQApsj6LQ_story.html

    You claim to be supporting the constitution an Electoral College still, but you offer nothing but an end run around the framers intent.

    “In many ways, the constitutional separation of powers between the states and the federal government is being eroded. The Founders never intended that the states should become merely administrative appendages of the federal government, much less that the United States become a unitary, centralized, plebiscitary democracy. NPV would push America along that dangerous and originally unintended path.” http://www.redstate.com/morton_c_blackwell/2011/06/24/national-popular-vote-plan-would-hurt-most-states/

    “The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” http://www.truethevote.org/news/new-national-popular-vote-scheme-does-it-violate-founders-plans

    “To make matters worse, the NPV would encourage voter fraud and make recounts more problematic. Currently, a fraudulent vote is counted only in the district in which it was cast and therefore can affect the electoral votes only in that particular state. Under the NPV, however, voter fraud in any state would affect the aggregate national vote. Additionally, any suspicions necessitating a recount in even a single district would be an incentive for a national recount. Thus, rather than just forcing a single state with a close vote to go through the painful process of recounting votes by precinct, a recount will effectively challenge the tallies of each the nation’s 180,000 precincts.” http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5349/National-Popular-Vote-Vs-The-Electoral-College.aspx

    Comment with your own words. stop spamming the blog with copy & paste

    Like

%d bloggers like this: