*
Thoughts from an old progressive
Roy Pratt

The Stink Test

Posted Tuesday, August 9, 2011, at 8:33 PM
Comments
View 15 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • The electoral college made sense back in the day when not everyone in rural areas could make it to a ballot box. Those days are gone though, and the electoral college system is obsolete. It needs to go the way of the page system, another obsolete function that is being retired.

    -- Posted by technomancer on Wed, Aug 10, 2011, at 9:00 AM
  • I would love to see the Electoral College gone !

    -- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Aug 10, 2011, at 9:02 AM
  • 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. There would no longer be 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of other states.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), 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.

    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. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL,CA, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes-- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

    -- Posted by mvymvy on Wed, Aug 10, 2011, at 3:56 PM
  • *

    Well said junkyard dog.

    -- Posted by DaveThompson on Wed, Aug 10, 2011, at 4:13 PM
  • National Popular Vote doesn't change the U.S. Constitution in any way.

    The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states 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 wins the presidency.

    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. With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.

    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, are an example of state laws 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, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained 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."

    As a republic, the citizens would continue to not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

    The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case recently in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

    Under the current system, the 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, and a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

    -- Posted by mvymvy on Wed, Aug 10, 2011, at 5:05 PM
  • JD,

    I can see the joke your making, but in a way, yes. I would like my vote to actually MEAN something. Not just an act when the real votes are up to the electoral college. The EC is obsolete, and it's time to let Americans choose their president, not the EC.

    -- Posted by lilmissmelmo on Wed, Aug 10, 2011, at 5:18 PM
  • Well Wayne, I think he is mad as heck, has figured it out, and actually has the answer. The whole thing has a chance of being pulled off if, and it's a big if, WE THE PEOPLE STOP HOLDING OUR NOSES AND DEMAND THAT CANDIDATES COME FORWARD THAT EMBRACE THIS POLICY!

    -- Posted by royincaldwell on Wed, Aug 10, 2011, at 11:27 PM
  • The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The bill would take effect when enacted 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).

    No possibility of ties, or lack of majority. Always guaranteed to elect President with a majority of Electoral College votes.

    -- Posted by mvymvy on Thu, Aug 11, 2011, at 11:20 AM
  • The candidate with the MOST popular votes is guaranteed to win the majority of electoral votes.

    -- Posted by mvymvy on Thu, Aug 11, 2011, at 11:21 AM
  • It shows on lamonts site that he is playing in Caldwell Park in Caldwell on the 13th at 5:00 PM ?

    -- Posted by MsMarylin on Thu, Aug 11, 2011, at 2:22 PM
  • Wayne, just got home from work! On the road all day. My apologies for missing you guys. Maybe the next weekend event, or maybe we can figure out how to communicate outside of this forum.

    -- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Aug 11, 2011, at 10:04 PM
  • Your right. Some people ask why I do what I do, and I tell them, at least I have a JOB!

    -- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Aug 12, 2011, at 6:13 AM
  • mvymvy,

    Bush vs Gore. Gore winner of popular vote by 500,000 votes.

    -- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Aug 12, 2011, at 6:15 AM
  • lane done

    -- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Aug 12, 2011, at 7:30 AM
  • I hate Iowa....I don't care what people from Iowa think and I am tired of hearing about how much weight Iowa has in the election...ok I feel better. I do think all states should have the same amount of votes. This would keep slick politicians from playacting to only certain states (Iowa) and giving only lip service at best to other states.

    -- Posted by DRACO on Thu, Aug 18, 2011, at 9:57 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: