The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Exposing the Liberal Lie through current events and history. “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.” ****** "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free." RONALD REAGAN

My Photo
Name:
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, United States

Two Reagan conservatives who believe that the left has it wrong and just doesn't get it!

Photobucket
Google
HISTORICAL QUOTE OF THE WEEK - "Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other." ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

DEMOCRATS SEEK TO BYPASS CONSTITUTION AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE TO ILLEGALLY WIN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

To some Americans the Electoral College is confusing, The purpose by the Framers of the Constitution for the Electoral College was to prevent the more populace states from solely electing a President and give smaller populated states a voice in the Presidential election. For instance if the Electoral College did not exist populace states such as California, New York, Ohio and Texas among others would have the ability by shear numbers only of electing the President every four years WITHOUT the inclusion of smaller populated states like Wyoming and Montana to name a few.

The Electoral College Constitutionally allows every state to have a voice in the election. The candidate that wins the popular vote in any particular state receives the electors from that state whose numbers match the Congressional Districts of the state. Only Nebraska and Maine split electors according to percentages of vote for Presidential candidates in their state.

Now a group of left wingers are attempting to eliminate the balance the Electoral College brings to the Presidential race. Massachusetts is currently debating legislation to join five other states in awarding all their state electors to the Presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote and not just the popular vote in their particular state. Several other states are considering this unconstitutional move to in essence eliminate the Electoral College and usurp the Constitution before the 2012 election.

Currently it takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidential election. With the move to eliminate the current Constitutional electoral system, a Presidential candidate could campaign ONLY in the 11 most populace sates in the Union and win the popular vote in those states winning the election. A move which would eliminate the other 39 states from having ANY voice in the election of the President.

The left see an opportunity in this unconstitutional move to use Democrat popularity in more liberal and populace states like New York and California as a means of eliminating any candidate other than a Democrat from ever winning a Presidential election again. Our Founders understood that as the country grew and the population of the country even as it did in the 1700's centered around larger cities, that more rural areas and states would have no voice in Presidential elections. Thus the Electoral College and balancing the vote so the same larger population areas would not be the ONLY citizens who elect a President.

This move sees the trend of the popularity of Barack Obama sliding more each day and as a result the very distinct possibility that he cannot be re-elected in 2012. So rather than following the Constitutional standard which has worked successfully since the election of George Washington, the left seeks to illegally usurp the Constitution by changing state election rules in liberal states in order to win future elections by stealing the voice of the people.

Ken Taylor

16 Comments:

Blogger toto said...

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). 12 of the 13 smallest states were NOT included. Of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections-- NH(4), NM (5), and NV (5). 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.

1:20 PM, July 22, 2010  
Blogger toto said...

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, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. It would no longer matter who won a state. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

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 bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote), including current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

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. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in 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): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, 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 -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

1:21 PM, July 22, 2010  
Blogger toto said...

The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all 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.

1:22 PM, July 22, 2010  
Blogger toto said...

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

12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.

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 small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

In the 13 smallest states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by eight state legislative chambers, including one house in Delaware and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.

1:25 PM, July 22, 2010  
Blogger toto said...

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.

1:26 PM, July 22, 2010  
Blogger toto said...

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.

1:27 PM, July 22, 2010  
OpenID factyouall said...

Ken,

It is amazing that you can post an original article such as this claiming a constitutional issue, question, or concern; and yet not actually provide any specific details as to what part of the Constitution they would argue is not being followed. You instead use general and vague comments as to the intent or purpose of the framers, but no direct references to portions of the document.

I would describe this as a fact-less "factual" assertion. In reality, it is an empty comment, and has no meaning to anyone who takes themselves and their country seriously. I would also say it is unpatriotic to claim something is unconstitutional without even beginning to show how that might be the case.

Way to go!

12:14 AM, July 23, 2010  
Blogger Mike's America said...

There's that "unpatriotic" label again... Factless must be a Dem as they are constantly throwing that word around.

As for toto who said...
"The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system of electing the President."

Well, electing the President based on the popular vote would mean candidates would only campaign in the big states and ignore the small ones altogether!

As always, any "reform" brings with it unintended consequences that those who propose the reform are not able to forsee (or choose not to).

No thanks. The current system has worked pretty well. I say we keep it.

11:27 AM, July 23, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With all this talk about the "facts", , I thought you guys might find this radio interview I found out of Wisconsin interesting. Facts are stubborn things.

http://www.wsau.com/podcasts/wi-morning-news/national-popular-vote-pat-rosenstiel-and-laura-bro/

3:03 PM, July 23, 2010  
OpenID factyouall said...

Mice,

So, from your comment, you apparently believe it is patriotic to claim something is unconstitutional without even beginning to show how that might be the case. I guess accountability or rationality are in small supply in your world.

As far as throwing words around, one favorite seen on this and other sites is "unconstitutional". At some times, I think there may have been claims that simply being President is "unconstitutional". At least this post avoided the everyday "tyranny" in vogue recently.

I often expect that feckless conservatives will say something and not have the guts to actually stand by their comments with any form of evidence that supports their baseless assertions. You don't disappoint on that count one little bit.

I sometimes wonder why you ever try to post replies, when your response is so weak.

12:59 AM, July 24, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brokersring.com - Learn how to turn $500 into $5,000 in a month!

[url=http://www.brokersring.com/]Make Money Online[/url] - The Secret Reveled with Binary Option

Binary Options is the way to [url=http://www.brokersring.com/]make money[/url] securely online

8:27 AM, February 25, 2013  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

ninest123 07.28
michael kors outlet store, louboutin shoes, longchamp bags, tiffany jewelry, coach outlet store online, oakley sunglasses, nike air max, ray ban sunglasses, burberry outlet, tory burch outlet, coach purses, gucci handbags, tiffany jewelry, coach outlet, coach outlet, christian louboutin, michael kors outlet online, ralph lauren outlet, louboutin uk, longchamp outlet, burberry factory outlet, christian louboutin, kate spade, replica watches, prada outlet, chanel handbags, michael kors outlet online, nike outlet, oakley sunglasses, kate spade outlet, ray ban sunglasses, michael kors outlet, michael kors, michael kors handbags, prada handbags, true religion outlet, nike air max, longchamp outlet, cheap jordans, ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglasses, nike free

1:39 AM, July 28, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

hogan sito ufficiale, nike roshe run pas cher, nike free pas cher, lunette oakley pas cher, polo ralph lauren uk, north face pas cher, burberry pas cher, jordan pas cher, polo lacoste pas cher, new balance, converse, longchamp soldes, lululemon outlet, louboutin pas cher, ray ban uk, abercrombie and fitch, longchamp pas cher, sac guess pas cher, nike air force, michael kors, north face uk, abercrombie and fitch UK, mulberry uk, vanessa bruno pas cher, true religion outlet, nike blazer pas cher, nike tn pas cher, hollister uk, michael kors uk, nike air max uk, hermes pas cher, vans pas cher, nike air max uk, true religion outlet, nike air max, nike free, nike air max pas cher, lunette ray ban pas cher, timberland pas cher, ralph lauren pas cher, true religion jeans, michael kors outlet online

1:45 AM, July 28, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

herve leger, iphone 6 cases, hollister clothing, lululemon outlet, p90x workout, reebok outlet, insanity workout, celine handbags, nike air max, north face outlet, giuseppe zanotti, softball bats, asics running shoes, nfl jerseys, vans outlet, mont blanc, bottega veneta, ghd hair, beats by dre, north face outlet, new balance shoes, nike roshe run, nike roshe uk, instyler ionic styler, jimmy choo outlet, babyliss pro, timberland boots, mac cosmetics, abercrombie, longchamp uk, chi flat iron, oakley, nike trainers uk, valentino shoes, soccer shoes, soccer jerseys, salvatore ferragamo, hermes handbags, abercrombie and fitch, mcm handbags, nike air huarache, wedding dresses

1:50 AM, July 28, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

supra shoes, uggs on sale, montre pas cher, uggs on sale, swarovski uk, ugg uk, wedding dresses uk, polo ralph lauren, juicy couture outlet, hollister, uggs outlet, uggs on sale, replica watches, uggs outlet, gucci, karen millen uk, bottes ugg pas cher, converse, nike air max, pandora charms, lancel, swarovski jewelry, vans scarpe, coach outlet, pandora jewelry, hollister, ray ban, converse shoes outlet, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, pandora uk, links of london uk, louboutin, juicy couture outlet, ugg pas cher, toms shoes, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, thomas sabo uk, marc jacobs
ninest123 07.28

1:54 AM, July 28, 2015  
Blogger dada24 Xu said...

michael kors bags
michael kors
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet store
mont blanc pen
montblanc
mulberry bags
mulberry uk
air max
nike air max 95
zhi20170117

9:55 PM, January 16, 2017  

Post a Comment

<< Home

website hit counters
Provided by website hit counters website.