In 2007, bills will be introduced in 28 states to pass the “National Popular Vote Plan” for president. The states are Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The organization supporting the plan may do an initiative in California, since the Governor vetoed it and is considered likely to be re-elected this year.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Re-posted again:http://liftwhileclimbing.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/national-popular-vote-plan-ballot-access-news-on-fire/
You guys are getting some great stuff out there recently!
Popular vote for president is a very bad idea. Downright dumb, in fact.
What I propose is much better, much, much better: Retain the Electoral College; abolish the rest of the government.
It will only be declared unconstitutional by the nine people in Washington, D.C.
Do people who think a national popular vote for president is dumb also think that state governors, for instance, should be elected by a system in which votes are allocated to counties (weighted toward the smaller ones), with the candidate obtaining the plurality of votes within each county being allocated all that county’s votes?
In other words, if the Electoral College is such a brilliant system, why don’t we use it to elect anybody else?
# Eric Prindle Says:
October 1st, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Do people who think a national popular vote for president is dumb also think that state governors, for instance, should be elected by a system in which votes are allocated to counties (weighted toward the smaller ones), with the candidate obtaining the plurality of votes within each county being allocated all that county’s votes?
In other words, if the Electoral College is such a brilliant system, why don’t we use it to elect anybody else?
I think we should. In the last Governor’s election in Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell was elected with only winning 18 counties by large margins compared to 49 by Mike Fisher. Rendell averaged almost 79,000 votes in the counties he won, compared with Fisher averaging just over 16,000 in the counties he won.
I doubt it their would be constitutional issue. (I don’t know of anything in the constitution telling states how they can allocate what they vote for). Although I think it is a stupid idea.
Eric: The supreme court has already thrown out that idea. States are autonomous entitites, not part of the Federal govt. Counties on the other hand are not autonomous, but simply a subdivision.
The idea is unworkable. If you thought the Florida recount was a problem, what happens in a close race where the entire country needs a recount.
I better idea is to have the states allocate their votes 1) proportional to their votes or 2) one per federal district. The two “senate” votes can go to the majority.
Close elections can still be recounted on a state by state basis.
The electoral votes should not be based on what happens outside of a state. This is what the national popular vote plan states. A states votes the 100% of its electoral votes the way the national vote goes. I am sure that it is unconstitutional as it gives voters outside of a state a say of how its votes are cast.
Eric, you really oughta read some history about how and why these United States were united.
To answer your question, the individual states, as sovereign entities, should continue to elect governors by popular vote.
Counties, and cities, too, are creations of those states.
The state is the basic unit of government in these United States.
The federal government is also a creation of the states.
It was not intended to be, nor should it be, the boss of the states and of everything and everybody else.
The federal government is supposed to be merely an expediter, of, for example, commerce between and among states, and perhaps the defender of the national borders.
Again, not the boss.
I am, I must admit, continually astonished at the lack of knowledge on the part of so many people, even some who comment here, as to why the Electoral College came to be. And even the federal government itself. Gosh, it’s explained, frequently, in many history books.
The knowledge is easily available.
The electoral system has advantages and disadvantages. Depends on what one’s objectives are. I am always cautious when something wants to be changed. My opinion is for a third political party it is an advantage to have the electoral system because if a third party carries a few states in the general presidential election it has bargaining power for those electorates to the bargaining parties that want to win.