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
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 11:49 PM
9 Comments:
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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/
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.
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
Post a Comment
<< Home