View Full Version : National Popular vote
Kyobanim
10-12-2008, 08:37
From: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/11/think-your-vote-matters-think-again/
Think Your Vote Matters? Think Again
Editor’s Note: The non-partisan Web site “Opposing Views” offers readers a look at all sides of the debate on a variety of issues. This is the part of ongoing series of posts from the Web site that will appear in the FOX Forum.
By Dr. John R. Koza
Chairman, National Popular Vote
You’ve become enthralled with John McCain and Barack Obama’s struggle to win the presidency. Along with record numbers of Americans, you tuned into the debates, attended rallies and registered to vote, many of you for the first time. Yet in all likelihood your vote won’t matter because this historic election will be decided by voters in only six or so closely divided “battleground states.”
The reason the vast majority of states don’t matter in presidential elections stems from a winner-take-all rule (Nebraska and Maryland being the notable exceptions). This rule awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes. Consequently, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or even pay attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. This harsh effect of the winner-take-all rule became clear in the first week of October when McCain’s Michigan state director Al Ribeiro explained McCain’s abrupt cessation of campaigning in Michigan: “The campaign must decide where it can best utilize its limited resources with the goal of winning nationally.”
Of course, voters in 36 of the 50 states never mattered, even before the 2008 presidential election began. Michigan just discovered the harsh political reality a little later. As early as spring 2008, The New York Times reported that both major political parties were in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008. In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
The best and most direct way to fix our broken system is to elect the president by a national popular vote. Under a national popular vote, every person’s vote, in every state, would be equally important, regardless of political party.
Every vote would be equal, and politicians would be forced to address the concerns of every voter. There would be no red states, no blue states, and no battleground states.
It’s crucial to remember that the winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution, but simply state law. That’s why we support the National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). It is currently being debated in all 50 states and has been enacted by four states- Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland.
It’s time to reform the current system and do what more than 70 percent of the public has long supported – elect the president by a national popular vote.
For more info go to http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
You think if this ever pased anybody would visit Montana?
Our Founding Fathers were very wise.
Kyobanim
10-12-2008, 09:03
Yes. At least they would in a close race.
In the article, Michigan isn't getting any visits under the current system. If all votes counted you can bet the candidates would at least be campaigning there.
It’s crucial to remember that the winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution, but simply state law.
Hmmm...:confused:...
I get into this debate quite often with my Government teacher arguing for the popular national vote idea and using the students as a 'jury' to decide whether or not this should occur. I argue for no or little change (tweaking), and it is interesting that we always wind up with the 'jury' not wanting to 'mess with' the electoral system.
The Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution and it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.
Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.
Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.
Here are some things to consider:
US Constitution
Article II
Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
-----
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
-----
Twelfth Amendment
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President to the United States.
-----
UNITED STATES CODE
The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):
TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT
Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies
Section
Time of appointing electors.
Failure to make choice on prescribed day.
Number of electors.
Vacancies in electoral college.
Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors.
Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection.
Meeting and vote of electors.
Manner of voting.
Certificates of votes for President and Vice President.
Sealing and endorsing certificates.
Disposition of certificates.
Failure of certificates of electors to reach President of the Senate or Archivist of the United States; demand on State for certificate.
Same; demand on district judge for certificate.
Forfeiture for messenger's neglect of duty.
Counting electoral votes in Congress.
Same; seats for officers and Members of two Houses in joint meeting.
Same; limit of debate in each House.
Same; parliamentary procedure at joint meeting.
Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act.
Resignation or refusal of office.
Definitions.
I agree with Pete and fear--historically--a popular national vote system leading to a repeat of the Weimar experience and an even more ineffective Congress. I suggest a reading of Jefferson's correspondence on the electoral issue and Hamilton's design for the electoral system in Federalist 68, as well as a study of the Weimar Government, if really interested in all this.
At this point in our history, should we break something this important just to then have Congress and the state legislatures try and fix it. :confused: I'm not for that...and seriously doubt whether or not our current politically partisan and divisive legislatures could do that.
Richard's $.02
Kyobanim
10-12-2008, 10:29
The worst part about the current system is the 'winner take all' states. That's the part of the system that needs changed and what this push is focusing on.
It’s crucial to remember that the winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution, but simply state law. That’s why we support the National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). It is currently being debated in all 50 states and has been enacted by four states- Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland.
In the article, Michigan isn't getting any visits under the current system. If all votes counted you can bet the candidates would at least be campaigning there.
1. MI didn't get visits by Dems during the 'primaries' because they--like FL--had gone against the rules of the DNC and their votes were not counted in this year's Dem primaries.
2. MI has been visited by the candidates--maybe just not as much as they wanted or would like. Who decides that? The candidates and Michigan... based on their 'collective' views of a candidate or party affiliation as shown in voter trends, news reports, etc. So...if MI votes staunchly and overwhelmingly Democrat...the GOP should spend >$ and time in a state which isn't going to favor them because??? And the DEMs should spend >$ and time in a state which is voting for them anyway because??? Don't the candidates/parties have the option to do that???
Maybe I'm just confused; it's happened before...a lot according to my wife. :p But maybe you could help me better understand all this. I'm listening. :)
Richard's $.02:munchin
The worst part about the current system is the 'winner take all' states. That's the part of the system that needs changed and what this push is focusing on.
Isn't that a "States Rights" issue and not a Federal one? Or are you advocating that the Federal Government should mandate--against the current constitution, US Code, and wishes of the individual state legislatures who decided to do it that way--that the states change it because some people think it is the way to do it? :confused: There are ways to change it...if the majority of the voters of a state choose to do so. Perhaps a question of greater concern would be why don't they choose to do it? :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
pheepster
10-12-2008, 10:53
You think if this ever pased anybody would visit Montana?
Our Founding Fathers were very wise.
Hey... not sure how to take that. :)
Kyobanim
10-12-2008, 11:04
Isn't that a "States Rights" issue and not a Federal one? Or are you advocating that the Federal Government should mandate--against the current constitution, US Code, and wishes of the individual state legislatures who decided to do it that way--that the states change it because some people think it is the way to do it? :confused: There are ways to change it...if the majority of the voters of a state choose to do so. Perhaps a question of greater concern would be why don't they choose to do it? :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Yes, it's a states rights thing. Actually, I'm not mandating anything. Check out the web site. Everything is laid out there.
The winner take all is what needs to go. And that is a states right issue. It's already been changed in some states and it looks like most states have introduced legislation to do just that.
Surf n Turf
10-12-2008, 12:51
The worst part about the current system is the 'winner take all' states. That's the part of the system that needs changed and what this push is focusing on.
Kyobanim,
We should think long and hard before considering any changes to either the Electoral College or the US Constitution.
The best way to explain why we need the Electoral College instead of Popular Election, or apportioning the Electoral College vote for the presidency is in showing what happened when the voting for Senators was taken from the State Government, and given to “the people” in a popular election.
US CONSTITUTION
Article I
Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
Bill of rights
Amendment XVII
(1913)
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
In my state, there are 67 counties, (with 1 very large, and 1 large urban counties.). The rest of the state is mostly rural, sparsely populated, with many “middle American towns”.
Prior to the Constitutional Amendment, each county voted for the two Senators we would send to Washington. The Candidates would campaign statewide, addressing the politics of the urban and rural citizens alike in order to be elected.
With the passage of the 17th Amendment, the Senatorial candidates campaign almost exclusively in the 2 Urban counties (mostly Democrat), since there is almost enough Popular votes for election, and totally ignore the other 65 counties, and their values, desires, and opinions.
If we changed the Presidential Election to “popular vote” or apportioned apportioning Electoral College, then California, Oregon, Washington State on the West, and Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey on the East Coast would elect our President. In practice, 6 states would elect the National Leader, and “impose” the values, desires, and opinions on the remaining 44 states. The Founders were very wise men.
Also, as a footnote, we are a Republic, NOT a Democracy.
Here is a link to a pretty good article on the Electoral College
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
SnT
Check out the web site. Everything is laid out there. The winner take all is what needs to go. And that is a states right issue. It's already been changed in some states and it looks like most states have introduced legislation to do just that.
Under the current system of electing the President, a candidate may win a majority of the Electoral College without having a majority of the nationwide popular vote. The National Popular Vote bill would reform the Electoral College by guaranteeing the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The bill would enact the proposed interstate compact entitled the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote." The compact would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the membership of the Electoral College (that is 270 of 538 electoral votes). Under the compact, all of the members of the Electoral College from all states belonging to the compact would be from the same political party as the winner of nationwide popular vote. Thus, the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) will be guaranteed a majority of the Electoral College, and hence the Presidency. Because the compact guarantees a majority of the Electoral College to the winner of most popular votes nationwide, the compact has the additional benefit of eliminating the possibility that a presidential election might be thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote).
How can an "interstate compact"--an agreement among the states to elect the President--among various states to elect the President w/o a constitutional ammendment be constitutional? I can see what the Supreme Court would do with this one.
And as an issue of "states rights"...if my state doesn't want to do it that way but CA, NY, FL, PA, IL, OH decide to do that...how can they force my state to do that? They can't without a constitutional ammendment...and there are specified ways to do that.
And the push for this is who? Apparently, it is primarily Dems who still fault the 2000 election process.
The claim of this concept being a "National Popular Vote" and a more direct electoral process is, IMO, a rather disingenious statement and offers no substantive change from the existing system...other than it seeks to subvert the Constitution by attempting to circumvent the ammending process.
My question is, "If this is such a good idea, why aren't voters and 'elected' state legislators working to convince their 'elected' members of Congress to push for this change IAW the Constitutional ammending process?"
Richard's $.02 :munchin
uboat509
10-12-2008, 15:48
If we changed the Presidential Election to “popular vote” or apportioned apportioning Electoral College, then California, Oregon, Washington State on the West, and Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey on the East Coast would elect our President. In practice, 6 states would elect the National Leader, and “impose” the values, desires, and opinions on the remaining 44 states. The Founders were very wise men.
Also, as a footnote, we are a Republic, NOT a Democracy.
SnT
You got to it before I could. This is why many Democrats want to get rid of the electoral college.
SFC W
uboat509
10-12-2008, 15:50
In practice, 6 states would elect the National Leader, and “impose” the values, desires, and opinions on the remaining 44 states.
Wait a minute though, didn't a read recently that there are 57 states? :D
SFC W
Wait a minute though, didn't a read recently that there are 57 states?
Well, when you count all the ACORN-registered voters, it works out numbers-wise. ;)