17 Responses

  1. toto at |

    New York has enacted the National Popular VOte bill.

    It is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

    Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
    No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes.
    No more handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states, like New York, that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
    The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

    NationalPopularVote.com

    Reply
    1. Ghost at |

      “The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).”

      so this year, both of those States would negate the votes of Trump to go with Hillary, thus discounting the will of the people in their State to go with the National total, whose votes came from felons, illegals and other non-citizens, dead people and derelicts, hobos, bums, drunks and dopers who are rounded up off off skid rows and slums in CA, NY, IL…

      The States are not neighborhoods, they are States, that’s why we are the UNITED States…
      the whole point of our System is to achieve consensus across regions and if there is a winning popular vote in States that total over 270 electoral votes, then what’s the point of your change?
      WE ALREADY HAVE THAT!

      NO WAY, Jose. I like my electoral process and I’ll keep it. If you and your ilk continue to try an end run around our Constitution then we’ll just call a Convention of States and Clarify what has been a spectacular success story for choosing the Most Powerful Position in America. We have to do that anyway to foil y’all’s plans to institutionalize your Leftist ideology.

      it is true that the Constitution does not specify a formula for the States to follow, which is why Maine and Nebraska are within their Rights to do as they do, but, I know what you’re up to – you’re Not! fooling me or any Patriot, you want to spoil the System, well the hell with you, dammit.

      The Reason the Presidential choice is decided in this unique way is because the President is Unique – only the President is Commander-in-Chief, which is why the Constitution’s Framers mandated that the President must be a, “NATURAL born Citizen” – we’ve already deviated from Constitutional brilliance, I call BS on any further aim to do more damage.

      Reply
      1. toto at |

        A survey of Georgia voters showed 74% overall support for the idea that the President should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

        By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote for President was 75% among Republicans, 78% among Democrats, and 67% among others.

        A survey of Missouri voters showed 75% overall support for the idea that the President should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

        By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote for President was 78% among Republicans, 73% among Democrats, and 73% among independents/others.

        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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

        Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

        Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

        Reply
        1. Ghost at |

          you’re the perfect example of someone who knows everything but understands nothing. THE POLLS ARE CRAP!
          didn’t this 2016 election teach you anything?

          I can find support for Hitler if I phrase the question:
          would you vote for a leader who restored industry and everybody had meaningful work,
          built the most modern, cutting edge transportation systems,
          restored our currency and built a great economy,
          cracked down on criminals and revolutionaries trying to change our systems with foreign ideas and
          restored National pride after our surrender in the Great War because of unpatriotic leeches on our generous State?
          Do you vote for a Strong Leader? someone who will command respect, attention and stature on the world stage?

          and then if I weighted the poll with sycophants…

          POLLS ARE CRAP! stick to what works, you fool
          President Trump, President Trump, President Trump…
          say it until you surrender to the inevitable

          Reply
          1. toto at |

            Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

            Trump, November 13, 2016, 60 Minutes
            “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

            In 2012, the night Mitt Romney lost, Donald Trump tweeted.
            “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

            Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969),Michael Dukakis (D-MA), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), and Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969).

            Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL), and Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN).

      2. toto at |

        Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are comingled and simply added together, irrespective of the fact that the electoral-vote outcome from each state was affected by differences in state policies, including voter registration, ex-felon voting, hours of voting, amount and nature of advance voting, and voter identification requirements.

        Reply
        1. Ghost at |

          because the States are sovereign in this area, because the States created the Federal government, not the other way around –
          which is why we have a Tenth Amendment!

          we are the UNITED States… each separate in every area not enumerated in the Constitution. Imagine That! a Constitution that LIMITS! the power of the Federal government, exalting the Power of the Individual through the States, which remain Sovereign in every area not granted to the Federal government, by agreement.

          you know so much and yet understand so little.

          Reply
          1. toto at |

            I was simply stating that states have and will have different laws.

            AND, since you appreciate it, Note that:

            Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
            “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
            The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

            Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all 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, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, 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 winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

            The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

            States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

            The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

      3. toto at |

        With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

        A presidential candidate could lose, winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

        Reply
        1. Ghost at |

          that’s exactly what The Left is trying to do, bringing in foreigners, via Agenda 21 (crowding people in urban centers) and electoral lawlessness in those urban centers, very perceptive you are

          Reply
      4. toto at |

        Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

        537 votes, all in one state determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

        Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 16 presidential elections

        In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.

        Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

        With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

        In the 2016 general election campaign

        Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

        Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country’s population).

        In the 2012 general election campaign

        38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

        More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states..

        Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

        Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

        Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
        “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

        Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
        “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

        Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

        Reply
        1. Ghost at |

          Still on your 2000 election crying jag:
          Gore Lost! because he lost Tennessee, Arkansas and New Hampshire, meanwhile he won Wisconsin and New Mexico by threadbare margins, unchallenged by the Bush team,
          but let’s ignore all that and cry about Florida and the millions+ derelicts, felons and illegals votes from California – rrrriiight 😀

          Reply
          1. toto at |

            Trump, November 13, 2016, 60 Minutes
            “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

            In 2012, the night Mitt Romney lost, Donald Trump tweeted.
            “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

          2. Ghost at |

            Trump instinctively knows the Constitution is Brilliance in tangible form, but he is Not a Constitutionalist.
            He will do the Right thing because he has the right instinct, but he has not had instruction in Constitutional thought.

            This is why, as Saleno Zito brilliantly instituted into the vernacular, “Trump supporters take him seriously, but not literally- his critics don’t take him seriously but take him literally.”

            Trump will learn more about the Constitution these next few years, and whether he agrees with everything or not – HE WILL OBEY IT. There’s the difference between Trump and The Zero.

          3. toto at |

            Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
            “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
            The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

            Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all 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, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, 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 winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

            The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

            States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

      5. toto at |

        Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

        Trump, November 13, 2016, 60 Minutes
        “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

        In 2012, the night Mitt Romney lost, Donald Trump tweeted.
        “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

        Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969),Michael Dukakis (D-MA), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), and Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969).

        Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL), and Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN).

        Reply
  2. david46425 at |

    I don’t know why he dislike the Electoral College. I mean this is the part of latest technology and people also like this technology. So i hope every body are agree with the activities of Electoral College.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.