Just as every Christmas brings the same tired argument over nativity scenes, Christmas trees and Santa Claus, every election cycle brings forth a fresh attempt to ignore the Constitutional establishment of the Electoral College, and allow the city centers to run roughshod over rural Americans. The 2012 election is no different, but it does bring a fresh approach to the age old problem of a “popular vote” Presidential election… by having the state legislators pass a law, obligating their EC votes to the national popular vote winners.
Under this scheme, state legislatures would pass legislation that would bind them to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote—even if the candidate that got the most votes nationally did not carry that individual state. In short, this would be a de facto popular vote for President—and done without amending the Constitution.
So far, seven states and the District of Columbia (with a combined 77 electoral votes) have enacted laws that do precisely this. Should similar laws be enacted in states with an additional 193 electoral votes, de facto popular election of the President will be achieved.
The California legislature, firmly in Democratic hands, was poised to pass similar legislation this week, but with opponents raising fierce objections, the vote was delayed. In Delaware, newly elected state GOP Chairman John Sigler told us, “Liberal Democrats in the state legislature have offered HB 55, and all the Republicans are against it. Republicans here are strongly opposed because it would repeal the Electoral College by implication. And in basically writing off many states, rural areas, and people, it would lead to rule by tyranny.”
As of the end of April 2011, Vermont – Bernie Sanders territory – became the eighth voting arena to enact such legislation. The others are New Jersey, Maryland, Massachussetts, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington State and Washington DC.
This is a completely different concept than the more common winner-takes-all method used by 48 states. In this case, a state’s vote is cast per their electors, but can be changed by national popular vote after the fact. Who in the world could think that a popularity contest should be a state’s deciding factor? And what state legislator thinks this is appropriate representation for his/her constituents?
This back door movement traces it’s roots back to the Al Gore disgruntled in 2001. The Wikipedia history of the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” cites the 2006 created non-profit to advocate for this “compact” hit the ground running, and had it introduced into 42 state legislative sessions by 2007. To date, only 8 of them have been enacted into law, translating to 77 guaranteed “popular vote” electoral votes for a US President.
All of those states with this passage are strongly leaning liberal/progressives states by tradition. What becomes more dangerous is if swing states manage to join this “compact” during a favorable political climate with their legislative make up.
Various lawsuits have been mounted… pro and con… on the concept of EC vs it’s reflection of a popular vote. In 2008, Washington DC Green Party member, Asa Gordon, mounted a legal challenge, which met the same fate as many legal arguments for more lofty causes… dismissed for lack of standing. Gordon’s lawsuit, targeting then Veep, Dick Cheney, was in fear of Cheney’s power, presiding over the Senate, and how his power would affect certification of the 2008 election results.
Gordon’s lawsuit is the favored legal template for progressives, seeking to reform the EC into a popular vote movement. Apparently, when the cause is near and dear to a progressive’s heart, they see a “lack of standing” – or a non ruling on the merits – as a bonus. Other cases with dismissals for the same standing reason, and with less popular causes, have not enjoyed the dismissal’s elevation in stature.
But the ruling on Gordon v. Cheney, now Gordon v. Biden, provides a blueprint for future progressive civil actions to reform the Electoral College to reflect the popular vote in presidential elections.
“I am very pleased with the ruling, but unsatisfied to the extent that I plan to appeal what I deem to be the court’s error to deny me personal standing,” said Asa Gordon. “The civil action was not only motivated by my personal standing as an injured voter, but the main objective was to determine the legal viability of the 14th Amendment’s Mal-Apportionment Penalty clause pleaded before the court that would democratize the Electoral College. The court granted the dismissal order predicated on a memorandum opinion that did not reject the constitutional arguments I pleaded before the court.”
The District Court, citing case law precedents, ruled that “a pro se plaintiff… cannot adequately represent the interests of other class members.” The court granted the dismissal motion, stating: “Because Gordon’s alleged injury is not ‘fairly traceable’ to the Vice President’s actions, which in fact are purely ministerial, but rather is attributable to the actions of third-party states and state officials, he fails to satisfy the causation element of standing. Therefore, he is unable to prosecute this action.”
What a bonus…. if they can talk the majority of high EC vote states into passing similar “national popular vote changes the state EC votes” legislation, there is no need to “reform” the Constitutional system set down by our Founding Fathers. They’ve found the back door…
As long as there are active progressives in our nation, bent on changing the Founders “Republic” to their desired “Democracy”, the push for voter and state inequity will continue. A quest that I’ve always found ironic. A liberal/progressive community is so all fired for “democracy” in our republic, but don’t recognize the overt lack of “democracy” when the few states with high population control political power over all 50 states. i.e. just how “democratic” is it for 5-8 states to dictate to 50?
But the same concept of the Electoral College, designed to prohibit that imbalance of voter power, also extends to the Senate. If we abolish the EC, why wouldn’t we then abolish the Senate where all states… regardless of population… have equal representation, and act as a balance to the House who’s membership is dictated by population? For that matter, using the same theory these state bills do, why doesn’t the Senate now have to automatically pass anything the House does, since they are more reflective of the nation’s population in membership?
This entire business of changing a state’s EC votes based on national popular vote makes me queasy… The fact that no one in any of these eight affected states has mounted a high profile challenge in the courts makes me even more queasy.
In fact, while some are quick to pronounce such a roundabout method to usurp what was clearly not the intent of the Founders – aka a President elected by national popular vote – as easily Constitutional, that is not necessarily the case. This would have to be scrutinized by a court, and determined whether it was the type of interstate pact that required Congressional approval.
Not all compacts require congressional consent under the Compact Clause. The Supreme Court has allowed interstate compacts to stand without congressional consent if they are non-political and fall outside the scope of the Compact Clause (Seattle Master Builders Ass’n v. Pacific Northwest Elec. Power and Conservation Planning Council, 786 F. 2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1986)).
To date, every case arising under the Compact Clause has concerned boundary, commercial, or regulatory compacts (Robert W. Bennett, State Coordination in Popular Election of the President Without a Constitutional Amendment, 5 Green Bag 2d 141, 141 n. 2 (2002)). Because no compacts challenged for want of congressional consent have ever been found to touch upon “political” matters, by treading either on federal interests or non-compacting states’ interests, the Supreme Court has never invalidated a compact under the Compact Clause (David E. Engdahl, Characterization of Interstate Arrangements: When Is a Compact Not a Compact?, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 63, 81 (1965)). Thus, it is unclear how a court would decide this issue.
Political Consent Theory. The Supreme Court would likely consider the compact under the “Political Consent” Compact Clause theory. This reasoning evaluates whether the compact contains a political subject affecting federal interests or the interests of non-compacting sister states, in which case congressional consent is required (U. S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U. S. 452, 477 (1978)).
Proponents of the Interstate Compact argue that the compact does not actually interfere with non-compacting states and therefore may be formed without congressional approval. Opponents argue that the Interstate Compact impairs the effectiveness of non-compacting states’ electoral votes, and thus requires congressional consent (Derek T. Muller, The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, 6 Election L. J. 372 (2007)).
An excerpt from a working paper by Derek T. Miller at Penn State U is of the opinion this quasi-interstate compact would fail the Constitutional sniff test.
In Part III, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is examined and found constitutionally deficient. The Compact is actually a compact under the Compact Clause of the Constitution, because the Court has broadly construed what makes a compact. In particular, because the Compact is not effective until a critical mass of States have enacted it, and because States are constrained from withdrawing from the Compact too close to a presidential election, the Compact falls under constitutional scrutiny. Additionally, the Compact addresses a political matter that affects the interests of non-compacting sister States, and the compacting States enhance their political power at the expense of other States. The Article examines the various defenses of the Compact but finds that none of them overcome the political interests of sister States. Therefore, barring congressional consent, the Interstate Compact would fail.
Considering that the eight states that have eagerly enacted such a Constitutional suicide pact for a Presidential election are serious left leaning states, such a challenge in the courts is unlikely to happen. But with Louisiana, California and Colorado already visiting such a concept, any one of those states would effectively tip any election into the Democrat laps.
But wait… this gets better. The bizarre attempts to hand more-than-equal voting power to a urban Americans – or as former Delaware Gov. Pete du Pont called it, the “urban power grab” – brings even more “creative” analogies used by pundits to justify this movement. And WaPo’s Ezra Klein should be awarded a Most anti-Constitutionalist Pundit of the Day award for his “out of the box” analogy, suggesting that the EC is akin to giving more voting power to the young because they will be more affected by the election outcome.
WTF?
First he offers his “out of the box” idea for debate:
America should implement weighted voting to make voting more objective and fair, and give the young more power, because the consequences of political decisions will affect them the longest. Weighted voting would restore power to twenty and thirty year olds, where it resided before the advent of medical science. With the aid of computers, it would be easy to give everyone a Voting Score, just like we all have a credit score.
When he’s rightfully excoriated for such an absurd suggestion by emails and comments, he does an update, explaining his “idea” was to make a point…. that some states enjoy more voting power even tho they have smaller populations.
Some people seem to think I’m advocating reweighting votes by age. I’m not. I’m pointing out that weighting votes by state, which is what we currently do, doesn’t make any more sense. It was an important political compromise that helped coax concerned states into the union, but a lot of time has passed since then, and now it’s an anachronism that unwisely gives a resident of Montana a more powerful vote than a resident of Michigan. I’m for unweighting votes entirely, and anyone who feels themselves getting angry at the idea of tilting democracy toward the young or the college-educated other group should ask themselves whether they aren’t, also.
Below is the map of the states, and their allocated EC votes in the 2008 election.
I’m not sure just how math challenged Mr. Klein is, but I don’t see that 3 EC Montana votes is “a more powerful” voice than Michigan’s 17 EC votes.
The EC is a complex critter that has evolved over time. Congressional Research Service’s Thomas H. Neale
wrote an article in 1999, briefly touching on the Constitional origins and it’s development thru the decades. The closest it ever came to effective abolishment was the failed The Bayh-Celler Amendment, which a disgruntled Congress attempted to pass after the 1968 election of Richard Nixon, when 3rd party candidate, George Wallace, siphoned off over 13% of the vote. Opposition was not divided along party lines, but size of states lines. Rightfully so. Anything that is decided by the whims of the nation’s population ushers smaller state populations to the back of the bus.
The single most important concept is that the Founding Fathers put the system in place specifically to preserve states as a Republic. To protect them from discrimination because of size of populations. And most important, to make sure the Presidential election did not become a national popular vote. They gave the power to the states to determine how their electors were chosen. But no where does it indicate Constitutional intent to negate the state elections in favor of a psuedo national election – all based on the results of a political beauty contest. Yet this is exactly what these state bills accomplish.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Brilliant!
Especially if you want Democrats forever.
This cool 3-D map shows the Red – Blue split in a way that captures the large Democratic vote in large urban areas. Thanks a lot, cool mapmaker, now we seem even more divided.
We now see that there are really no Blue States, there are only Blue Cities.
But those Blue Cities’ popular votes are enough to throw the whole nation Blue.
Nan G, that very cool map is worthy of an embed…Mata
I am amazed at the stealth that this movement is creeping through state legislatures. Here in Louisiana a seemingly conservative represetnative is co-sponsoring the bill to do away with the EC. In fact it’s very scary that this is even being debated. It’s past time we cleaned out Congress and the states legislatures and started over.
Sid, we would be *very* curious to see how your LA attempts at this progress. I’m requesting a reader’s post submission by you as the battles ensue…. :0)
Nan G…. LOL!
The reason that progressives want to abolish the electoral college, just as they pushed for citizens to have the power to elect federal senators, is because citizens no longer understand the constitutionally limited powers of Congress and the Oval Office.
B. Johnson, I would think that the schools should teach them those important
facts not try to have it change just because some don’t understand it.
Imagine that – a President elected by popular vote! Pretty scandalous if everyone’s vote counted the same irrespective where they lived wouldn’t it? Sounds too much like democracy to me!
Gaffa, I know you’re a “fur’in’ner”, guy. But your comments here, as well as a few other places I noted, simply point out that your knowledge of the US as a Republic, and not a Democracy, and state’s rights, are far beyond your capacity to grasp. Which is why you are a citizen of another country, and live in a different country than the one you are a citizen of. Tend to your own backyard, guy.
I think the only way I can impress the difference of a republic vs democracy to you is to use the example of the EU. Would you be in support of a “popular vote” for the PM in the UK to be based on the results from other EU nations?
It has no chance of ever happening, but my preferred reform to the EC would be this:
Votes are allocated based upon your House district and your Senate representation. Whoever wins the congressional district gets one EV for the district. Whoever wins the state gets the two EV’s for the state. I believe at least one state does this already. (Nebraska?)
This eliminates the winner-take-all stuff that we have now, and keeps the original intent of the founders. To me, it makes far more sense than either our current method or a nationwide popular vote.
But, it’ll never happen.
Understand the concept you present, Chris of Rights. But in the long run, a Presidential election is a state election for a national office. Bottom line, there is a “winner” of any state election, no matter what the split. Somebody wins the state by some percentage.
This interstate compact back door method takes it from a state election for a national office, to a national popular vote election… regardless of the states’ votes… totally bypassing states’ rights or the concept of the Founders. I’d like to see the Constitutionality of that challenged.
Mata I love the E.C. It gives the small states a say.We might consider apportioning the electors by% of popular vote in each state.This the Dems. did in 08 primaries and gave BHO the win over HRC. It would ensure Repub pres cand. campaigning in solid blue and Dem in solid red.
@GaffaUK: Can you tell us the difference between a pure democracy and a democratic republic?
I sincerely doubt it.
@MataHarley:
Mata, I agree with your assessment except for one thing:
GaffaUK is NOT a citizen of the U.K.
GaffaUK is a SUBJECT of the U.K.
We, OTOH, are CITIZENS of the U.S.A.
The difference being we CITIZENS of the U.S.A. have the right to bear arms.
Subjects of various countries do not.
And when a government decides to take away all of the rest of the rights of their SUBJECTS, they can easily go ahead and do so.
NOT so easy when the CITIZENRY can fight back.
Just another version of a “popular vote” in some ways, rich. As I said to Chris of Rights above, do you apportion duties and powers in a state election based on percentage splits to the loser?
It’s a state election. Someone wins. Someone loses… even if by a fraction of a percentage. But at least it’s that states’ choice, and isn’t altered after the fact based on a national election “poll”.
@MataHarley
So you only comment on internal issues of the US do you Mata – you never comment on the internal issues of other countries? lol c’mon puhlease.
lol – now that shows your ignorance of the UK and the EU. That would be like all the citizens of the US deciding who would be the Governor of New York state. Sorry but you example is deeply flawed. There is plenty wrong with the politics and processes in the UK and the EU but your example isn’t even relevant.
@Nan
Plenty of countries besides the US can carry arms. Although the last time the citizens decided to fight the government with arms when they were denied their constitutional right for their states to leave the union – their asses were handed on a plate. And judging but all the fuss on here about how your constitutional rights have been eroded I haven’t seen any armed insurrections. So I guess it’s all talk. But keep waving your piece of paper if it makes you feel you are somehow more free. lol;)
Pointless hyperbole, Gaffa. First of all, we solve our problems via ballot box first. Last time we did armed insurrection, we kicked your former glory butt’s azz. Since then, you’ve become but a shadow of your former colonial era self. BTW, how’s down under treating you? Don’t you miss your homeland?
Secondly, yes the states’ secession was indeed the catalyst for the US Civil War, and that secession was based on tariffs and fiscal survival. However one side won in that “united states”. We carry on, still as a “united states”, and still have handed your azz on a plate since. I repeat…. Can you say former superpower? Shadow of former self?
GAFFA UK, YOU CANNOT BEAT MATTA ON THE LAWS OF THE LAND,
she know a lot more than you what is the rules of the FOUNDING FATHERS,
SO YES TEND TO YOUR OWN BACKYARD.
Actually, no I don’t comment on another country’s internal issues, save as it relates to US interests. Show me any post where I have done otherwise. I don’t tell your country how to restructure your government. I expect that same courtesy in return.
Gaffa, you have no “President” of the UK. Your highest elected political office is the PM. You don’t elect your monarchy, nor do they really hold sway over the political governance of your country.
Are you such a dodohead that you equate the office of the PM with a US state’s governor?
You should quit while you’re behind. We have state sovereignty here, just as your nation state EU members have sovereignty there. Therein lies the foundation of your ignorance of a “republic” vs a “democracy”.
@GaffaUK: Dude, quite while you are woefully behind. Really, it is sad what you are doing to yourself.
Hell you couldn’t even answer my question when I asked you to differentiate between a pure democracy and a democratic republic.
BTW, since you are so knowledgeable of our Constitution (chortle), seeing as how you chided us on “waving (y)our piece of paper,” which one is The United States of America? A democracy or a democratic republic??
@GaffaUK:
As you have shown before, Gaffa, you are Constitutionally challenged. At the time of ratification of the Constitution, the voting for President became one of states voting for electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives. Fair representation, for both city dwellers, that dominated the north, and the rural agricultural communities that dominated the south, was the goal. It isn’t much different today, with the major city populations being so huge, and the rural states, mainly centered now within the midwestern areas. The system works, and should not be changed, just because a bunch of people tend to be ignorant of history, and the Constitution, like you are.
@GaffaUK:
Can you? To the extent that we, here in the United States, are allowed to? Didn’t think so.
Not quite, Gaffa. It was a near assured victory for the south, and state’s rights, until Lincoln whipped up the fervor for abolition of slavery(which I agree with), and even then it wasn’t a foregone conclusion, as the north’s advantage in industrial technology(when considering firearms tech), was largely equalized by the south receiving help from Europe.
I have discussed this before, but Lincoln, while his motives were good, to keep the union together to prevent a weakening of the United States, that foreign entities could attack, the result was a severe hit against the idea of State’s rights, which were further explored by progressives starting in the early 20th century. The real lesson from that bit of history should be that allowing the destruction of Constitutional ideas always leads to unintended consequences, and none of them have ever benefited the U.S.
Maybe that is because the first thing conservatives think about, when confronting any issue, isn’t to pick up their guns and start firing. Our founding father’s tried everything they could, from letters, to ambassadors, and other peaceful means, for their grievances to be heard, and redressed, before resigning themselves to armed insurrection.
This past week or so you have shown a negligible amount of knowledge concerning our Constitution. That isn’t surprising considering your heritage. You might want to read more on the subject of that “piece of paper”, before attempting to comment on it again. May I suggest these sites, concerning the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, so that you may learn more;
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html
Being ignorant of a subject isn’t insulting to the knowledgeable. Choosing to remain ignorant of a subject is.
Quite the gentlemanly reply to our former motherland friend, johngalt. I’m not sure if Gaffa could absorb the complexity of the federalist papers. So maybe he needs a simplified version from Wiki sources…
i.e. the difference between a federal republic, like the US, Germany, Brazil, Switzerland and how that differs from his UK’s constitutional monarchy. When he’s got some of those simplicities down, he can then move on to the different degrees of federations, i.e. a sovereign state, characterized by the union of self governing states or regions, united by a central federal type power.
The US also falls under this federation category. The EU falls under this as what they call a “de factor” federation, utilizing the same central goals of currency and other mutually beneficial shared interests.
Nothing more complex than trying to explain republics to the not so well informed. Even worse when they think they know better.
I would no more tell the UK to yield their constitutional monarcy than I would accept them telling us to alter our republic as founded. It’s called none of their business.
MATA DON’T YOU THINK THA JOHNGALT WOULD MAKE A PERFECT PRESIDENT,
I can read the news lines,…THE NEW PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
FROM FA, wow, I can feel the prestige we would have to be name special envoyed to the PRESIDENT TO DISCUSS A CERTAIN SUBJECT, or give him one of my good ideas.
bye
@MataHarley:
Most of it is a continuation of our discussion from the Weekly Open Thread, where I posted a small essay dealing with the Constitution, and our current federal government.
On top of the Federalist, and Anti-Federalist Papers, more specific knowledge of our nation’s history, in particular the unintended consequences and effects from certain actions in our history, is typically of great benefit to understanding the general ideas presented within the Constitution, and why our forefathers sought to include certain phrases, clauses, and paragraphs, within it.
It’s kind of difficult to expect a foreigner, who most likely has not lived with the guaranteed freedoms cited, as well as implied, within our Constitution, to understand why they are a big deal to true conservatives. Gotta be patient with them……..LOL.
@Nan G: 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 as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run, can be found by examining the way 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 methods. 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.
Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. 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 in Ohio and Florida already knows–namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
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., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states. It is certainly true that the biggest cities in those states typically vote Democratic. However, the suburbs, exurbs, small towns, and rural parts of the states often voted 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.
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.
@B. Johnson: @MataHarley: National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a “republican” form of government or is a “democracy.”
A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
If a “republican” form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a “democratic” method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.
Dividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person’s vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws(whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.
@rich wheeler: 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.
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.
@rich wheeler: 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. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but 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.
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.
12 of the 13 lowest population 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 Despite the fact that these 12 lowest population 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 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.
In 2004, Bush’s cumulative vote lead of 650,421 in the 6 then reliably Republican states only got him 19 electoral votes, while Kerry’s cumulative vote lead of 444,115 in the 6 then reliably Democratic states, got him 21 electoral votes.
The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York’s use of winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming–both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
@MataHarley: Many people wrongly believe the presidential election system we have today is in the Constitution, and think that any change would need an amendment. But 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.”
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.
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 is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in 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 smaller 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%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
Some poll details for 2 of the states mentioned:
A survey of 800 Delaware voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 79% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
By age, support was 71% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 77% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 81% among women and 69% among men.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#DE_2008DEC
In a 2008 survey, 70% of California residents and likely voters supported this change. Democrats (76%) and independents (74%) were more likely to support a change to direct popular vote than Republicans, but 61 percent of Republicans also supported this change. Among likely voters, support for this change was 6 points higher than in October 2004 (64%).
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#CA_2008OCT
Most voters 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 counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
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 (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes — 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
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 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.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. 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. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about at least 72% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). 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.
Now, policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing, too.
Since World War II, a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states that have a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). Then, 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 would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The Electoral College 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.
States have the responsibility to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. 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. It does not abolish the Electoral College. 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.
Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.
The U.S. Constitution provides:
“No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state….”
Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has method, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can “not be read literally.” In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
“Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.
“The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.”
Specifically, the Court’s 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
“Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”
The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
“The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”
The National Popular Vote compact would not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is simply no federal power—much less federal supremacy—in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States. Under the current system, 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.
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.
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. 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).
Senator Robert E. Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee for President in 1996 and Republican nominee for Vice President in 1976, stated in a 1979 floor speech:
“Many persons have the impression that the electoral college benefits those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a misconception. Through my experience with the Republican National Committee and as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1976, it became very clear that the populous states with their large blocks of electoral votes were the crucial states. It was in these states that we focused our efforts.
“Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance.
“Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in States that are perceived to be single party states.”
In a 1979 Senate speech, Senator Henry Bellmon (R–Oklahoma) described how his views on the Electoral College had changed as a result of serving as national campaign director for Richard Nixon and a member of the American Bar Association’s commission studying electoral reform.
“While the consideration of the electoral college began—and I am a little embarrassed to admit this—I was convinced, as are many residents of smaller States, that the present system is a considerable advantage to less populous States such as Oklahoma. … As the deliberations of the American Bar Association Commission proceeded and as more facts became known, I came to the realization that the present electoral system does not give an advantage to the voters from the less populous States. Rather, it works to the disadvantage of small State voters who are largely ignored in the general election for President.”
I understand what point you are trying to make, oldgulph. However what you are missing, or deliberately glossing over in order to justify the Constitutional legality of a national popular vote, is that the specific intent in the Constitution was for this position of power to be state elections… not a national popular vote. And it was for these reasons that the EC was established originally.
If you want to play the game that each individual state election is a democratic… i.e. popular vote wins… act, that is true. However when you bypass a state’s individual elections results to assume the national results, you have eroded the state’s power as delegated to them in the Constitution.
Secondly, this quasi legal “compact” is also shaky on passing the Constitutional test. As I pointed out in my post, none of the eight liberal/progressive dominated states have a challenger in the courts. It will be a sad day in this country when the state legislature cedes a states’ vote results to a national popularity contest without a challenge. The NPV group has been at this for years, and out of 42 tries, has only succeeded in 8 progressive states. I’d say your message falls flat with most of the nation.
But it sure sounds pretty when you attempt to say it…..
I could go thru your back to back novelettes one by one here, but this single statement by you says it all:
You are eloquent. You are courteous. None of this matters when you are abysmally wrong, and swimming against the current of the Founders intent. You know that one, don’t you? That’s one of those relatively vague little philosophies that the SCOTUS must delve into regularly on the more questionable issues that we citizens are lucky to see make it to their desk.
I know what you want. It’s reiterated plain as day in the excerpts I quoted above. I can see you’re adept at painting a rosy picture of rhetoric that doesn’t match reality when you suggest that the urban centers cannot override rural denizens and small states. That’s if someone has the patience to wade thru your comments, statistics and banal approach. Some don’t have that focus. But you’d probably do well on a Libertarian site… they eat this kind of stuff up.
While I congratulate you on your pretty, if not factual, and lengthy presentations, I can skip all the BS and get down to the nitty gritty. What you present makes my blood run cold. because it is antithesis to the founding principles of this nation, and it’s protection against the many being ruled by the few in one of our only opportunities to engage our voices.
Here’s the bottom line. No matter how many words you throw in, statistics, numbers and other fodder at your fingertips, you still come down to your anti-constitutional basic belief of “fairness”… the President of the United States should be decided by a national – not state – election and by popular vote.
I think I’ll toss you overboard, and stand with the Founding Fathers.
Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: “I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives, it is good for California, and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.
National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . .Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it.”
Oh yes… I’ll also add this, oldgulph.
You may be polite, courteous, and wrong. But now you’re borderlining on being spam.
Let me add that you did the same back in January, posting as Kohler then. Again you cited the National Popular Vote site stats.
Oh, but not just here. How about here,, or at the cbs Detroit blog here?. Hey… not that I don’t like to see people employed, but I think we know who you are by now. And can predict the times you show up to spam threads that dare to question your agenda.
Can you say National Popular Vote shill?
@MataHarley
Here you are commenting on internal issues in the UK…
and save as it relates to US interests.
Of course so you really don’t think how US elects it’s President doesn’t have impact on other countries or would be of interest to them? lol
@GaffaUK, yo… was I advocating that you change your Shariah law rules? Or change your monetary hand outs? What I was suggesting is that the waste may wake up your lazy and complacent populace.
You, on the other hand, suffer under the delusion that the US is a democracy. And apparently, you don’t like that.
Who cares what you like? Tend to your own back yard.
Wow! I have never seen political spam before. That’s a whole new level of creepy!
The politically legislative driven “non profits” hire people to just just search for keywords and debunk. I doubt there was much original in kohler/oldgulph’s diatrible. Cut and paste stuff from others, meant to razzle/dazzle, confuse, and finally bore into submission.
On the other hand, if he’s being paid, at least he’s not collecting unemployment…. As far as his opinion towards our founding principles? Makes it to the scum level for me. No higher.
@AnticRocks
Now Antics do you mean representative democracy rather than democratic republic? lol
Because the following call themselves Democratic Republics…
Algeria
Congo
Ethopia
Former East Germany
Lao
Nepal
North Korea
São Tomé and Príncipe
Sri Lanka
Timor-Leste
Formerly Yemen
There isn’t a country in the world which has pure democracy.
It seems that some of you are getting hot under the collar because you claim I don”t understand your system whereas I’m only questioning it. Change. Scary isn’t it? I mean you guys sound like pro-monarchists in America before the US became a Republic – afraid to question anything outside the status quo. The current system must be perfect because the Founding Father say so. Imagine it. The current system is perfect because George III say so and if you try to question it then you obviously don’t understand Monarchy. I think some of you are being a tad defensive 😉
Ok lookie… Gaffa just got some wiki education and is bandying about words he still doesn’t get, and comparisons to countries that bear no resemblence to our own in functionality.
Like I said, Gaffa… if you want to change a country’s founding structure, focus on your own. Your criticisms of ours carry no weight here. This is our country, our choice, our battles.
So if you’re so in love with the UK’s constitutional monarchy, why you hiding out down under?
@Mata
Yep – commenting on another countries issues. lol
It is a democracy – a flawed democracy like the UK but a democracy all the same and representative democracies are still democracies.
If you don’t care – why comment? Or is that your school yard taunt boils down to? lol
Guess who the Head of Australia is Mata….lol
btw…I’m a republican (small r). Because I dare to critique another country’s doesn’t mean I am holding up my own country as being better. It’s not. Some logic for you.
GAFFA UK, you said the last word absolutly right, and they are right to be defensive to protect the CONSTITUTION and the BILL OF RIGHT, from all the attacks it gets these years,If they would not have been on guard the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA would have been rendered so weak that it would have been as it is now in a danger zone to opponant who want to change it forever,
but It wont happen with the conservatives being the patriots who have embrace the lifelong task to protect AMERICA, LONG LIVE THE CONSERVATIVES BECAUSE THIS NATION IS NOTHING WITHOUT THEM ALWAYS ON GUARD FOR THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE
THAT FOR YOUR 44 COMMENT A TAD DEFENSIVE
@GaffaUK, I know it’s in your socialist nature, but “commenting on another countries’s issues” is only half of your attempted distraction from your deplorable knowledge of this country… and even your own’s… governmental structure.
Your comment #5 came out of the gate suggested that the post was irrelevant because a popular election of our POTUS “Sounds too much like democracy to me!” This is not the way our country was founded. That doesn’t stop you from snooping outside of your own back yard, laughingly suggesting it was inferior in your eyes.
I don’t tell you Brits to shun your Shariah parallel court system, to change your socialized health care. You run your government the way you all seem fit, and I’m not telling you it’s incorrect. It’s not our way. Then again, you all have nothing to crow about either for your choices.
Your caustic observations of our nation are mostly offensive because you are so unbelievably uninformed about how our government works. Therefore, you observations they are inferior, or unfair, are also unwelcome. And we are not, and have never been a “democracy”. Again, you show not only our ignorance, but your arrogance.
Tend to your own backyard. And one day, you might even go live there again….
Wow! I can’t say that sounds like a bad job; getting paid to be a idiot on the computer all day. Unfortunately for me, I can’t do such things because I value my dignity. Its a personality thing.
Don’t worry Gaffa there is plenty of people just like you, able minded people who choose to put no value on personal freedom, like an a lion who has spent to many years in captivity, you have submitted to your handlers and do their biddings willingly, how sad. Rest assured, your disrespect of the constitution and those who believe in it will get a rise out of me, I understand that as you are mentally impotent its quite hard for you to stand for anything.
Zac, Gaffa’s not a US citizen. He’s an admitted Brit, who also admits he doesn’t live there anymore, but in Australia. Apparently he doesn’t have respect enough even for his own country to hang…
Don’t care what he thinks about the US. Just get tired of him misrepresenting who we are and our founding structure over and over. As @johngalt mentioned above, it was a continuing misrepresentation that spilled over from another thread. I had read Gaffa’s BS, but never commented. So I wasn’t surprised to see him continuing the line, despite johngalt’s patient attempts to educate him elsewhere.
Gaffa’s not new here, and when he latches onto something convenient to his political leanings (which are a far cry from US conservative…), he’s like a pit bull with a treasured frisbee. I don’t have the patience to play that game, nor follow his bread crumbs to other distractions.
Zac, hi, not as poetic as the other one at SKOOKUM POST, that is very funny,
but I can say that you are the type to go right to the point, no swaying
into foolish words,
bye
MATA, I’m glad that you explain the Oldguph’s comments, to some like me who didn’t understand that
what it was about, seem very complicated to me, so I won’t try to understand it, but at least I now understand that what he mentionned is not to be recommanded, even if some STATES are implimented it already, if I read it right.
bye
Mata unfortunately Gaffa seems to have a disorder very common among Europeans.
Thanks Bees!
@Gaffer: Still waiting on you to answer my question. Cutting and pasting a list of countries from an article on Wiki is not answering the question.
Please explain the difference between a democracy and a democratic republic.
If you can’t, no biggie, just admit your ignorance.
@oldgulph:
You miss a couple of the most important points in your numerous comments, not to mention that you repeat the same claim over, and over, and over, without actually stating why that claim is true.
The biggest point for the Electoral College, and one that you dispute, is that the Constitution states, very clearly, that the votes for President shall be made up, from each state, of the number of Senators and Representatives, and that the state shall determine exactly how those votes will go for the EC. Most states have opted for the popular vote of the state to receive all of the EC votes for that state. Some have decided to do it by other means. The point is, that as of this point in time, the states are following the Constitution.
The second point is that the large urban, city areas DO determine elections. It is not the overall populations of the cities, but the percentages of votes, in the different areas, that determines the winners. Rural areas tend to vote more closely with the overall percentage of Democrats, Republicans, and others. Urban areas, on the other hand, tend to vote quite heavily for Democrats. This shifts the weight of the votes from the state entire, to that of the urban areas typically determining who wins a statewide election. Yes, there are examples of GOP candidates winning in states with large urban populations, that is true, but it has more to do with the individual politics than it does with any overall breakdown of voters’ preferences. A National Popular Vote method would ensure, in greater numbers, that the urban areas would dominate the Presidential election than they do at present, and that is exactly contrary to the ideas set forth by the founding fathers.
Simply repeating the same idea, that a National Popular Vote would make every voters’ vote important, does not make it so.
@Mata
So I take it that Palin is also delusional when she said the following:
LOL:p
Gaffa, this is what I mean with chasing your tangents. I don’t care what Palin says. Nor is she, or has she, been central to attempting to re’educate you. However, since you insist upon resisting, it’s really not worthwhile spending much else time on it. Remain blissfully ignorant, Mr. ex-pat.