The National Popular Vote Bill was circulated for cosponsorship today.
This is a direct attack on our U.S. Constitution. Long story short it would change the way we elect our President. It would create a situation in which a President could be elected with only 20% of the voting population instead of the current 51%. If there are 20 candidates running for president the winner would only need a majority (which could be 20% or less depending on how the votes are split up) in order to win. The candidates would only need to focus on the high populous areas in order to win, creating a VERY slanted playing field. How would you like CA, FL and NY being the biggest players in deciding who our President would be? For more information and talking points, click here.
Contact your WI State Legislators immediately and tell them NOT to support the National Popular Vote Bill.
NOTE - CORRECTION: It would create a situation in which a President could be elected with only 20% of the voting population instead of the current 51% of the electoral college.
Contact your WI State Legislators immediately and tell them NOT to support the National Popular Vote Bill.
NOTE - CORRECTION: It would create a situation in which a President could be elected with only 20% of the voting population instead of the current 51% of the electoral college.
9 comments:
Under the current system of electing the President, presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule 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.
The Founding Fathers said in 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."
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 rule) 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.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (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 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 rule.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since the 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 rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
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.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
Based on historical evidence, there is far more fragmentation of the vote under the current state-by-state system of electing the President than in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the jurisdiction involved.
Under the current state-by-state system of electing the President (in which the candidate who receives a plurality of the popular vote wins all of the state's electoral votes), minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). The reason that the current system has encouraged so many minor-party candidates and so much fragmentation of the vote is that a presidential candidate with no hope of winning a plurality of the votes nationwide has 51 separate opportunities to shop around for particular states where he can affect electoral votes or where he might win outright. Thus, under the current system, segregationists such as Strom Thurmond (1948) or George Wallace (1968) won electoral votes in numerous Southern states, although they had no chance of receiving the most popular votes nationwide. In addition, candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states.
When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. 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 is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate could win 100% of the votes in the nation's top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.
After more than 10,000 statewide elections in the past two hundred years, there is no evidence of any tendency toward a massive proliferation of third-party candidates in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by the office. No such tendency has emerged in other jurisdictions, such as congressional districts or state legislative districts. There is no evidence or reason to expect the emergence of some unique new political dynamic that would promote multiple candidacies if the President were elected in the same manner as every other elected official in the United States.
I'm all for this bill. Consider this: "Another shortcoming of the winner-take-all rule is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, or organize in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign visits and ad money in just six closely divided "battleground" states. A total of 98% went to just 15 states. In other words, voters in two thirds of the states were essentially spectators to the election."
I suppose that the right wing factions of this country do not want this to happen, because they will be marginalized even further than they are now.
MVYMVY: You copied and pasted a lot of info from another source. This will be the only instance I will allow this for you. Please do not do this again or you will be asked to refrain from posting on this blog in the future. Thank you. - The Management
"Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule 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."
Then why did McCain and Palin stop here??? They were VERY far behind..
MYVYMVY -
YOU SAID: "The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)."
You try to spin the web as though a person would win with a "majority" of votes, meaning 51% or more. That is not the case - someone could win with 6% of the vote. A small organized group could rule this country.
YOU SAID: "Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections."
Not true. As a candidate you would only concentrate on highly populated areas because you only need a small number to win.
YOU SAID: "The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, .....
........receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)."
We are only 5 states or so away from ratifying the constitution - EF knows the exact number. NPV.org is using the tea party movement to spring board its devious plan to attack our constitution through a game of smoke and mirrors.
YOU SAID: "The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill."
PROVE IT
YOU SAID: "In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system .............................................79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%. Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed."
WHAT WAS THE LANGUAGE OF THE POLLS? WHO FUNDED THEM? WHAT YEARS? PROVE IT!
YOU SAID: "The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers,....................................... and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect"
SO WE SHOULD BE LEMMINGS? Your list is not right - some states have rescinded.
Post a Comment