According to this article, published January 2 in the World-Herald, 17 of Nebraska’s 49 State Senators desire to bring back the winner-take-all system for choosing Nebraska’s electoral votes. 13 Senators want to keep the existing system. The other 19 Senators did not express a preference.
Nebraska has let each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector, starting in 1992. In 2008, for the first time, one Nebraska district voted differently than the other districts, so that Barack Obama got one electoral vote, and John McCain got four.
Half the votes in half the gerrymander areas – States – districts – whatever = about 25 percent minority rule.
Abolish the timebomb Electoral College NOW.
Keep counting the about 620,000 dead in Civil War I in 1861-1865 due to the timebomb gerrymander election in 1860 for Prez.
——
Uniform definition of Elector in the U.S.A.
Nonpartisan nominations and elections of all elected executive officers and all judges using Approval Voting — pending major education about head to head math.
Keeping the Maine/Nebraska system of choosing electors is the most important electoral issue today.
Getting other states to adopt it is the best way to improve our electoral system and help maintain our liberty.
Direct election of the President and VP would result in the end of liberty in America.
The best way of improving the national electoral system is to abolish [state by state or nationally] the imperial anti populist Electoral College! Then allow those second and third class citizens of DC [no state hood, no state hood, no state hood] PR, Virgin Islands, Guam, Marriannas, and other empire out posts have full and direct enfranchisement!
Common sense ain’t so commond!
——– Donald Raymond Lake
We need to strengthen the Electoral College system. We need to use the Maine/Nebraska system to choose electors, identify the electors during the campaign and encourage the independence of electors when they make their final choice.
Without the Electoral College system, the President will become an elected fascist socialist emperor. Liberty in America will end.
Only fools want to end the Electoral College system.
It’s proportional representation and direct election of national leaders that must be abolished worldwide. This is the only way secure liberty around the globe.
Liberty must be our goal.
Limited government and limited democracy is only a means to that goal.
The rights of the individual are paramount.
Dear Coming Back to the LP:
I really would like to know why you say the imperial president would be MORE imperial by our abolishing the electoral college. In 2000, we came
up with an UNelected emperor, George W. Bush, who
won despite coming in 550 thousand votes behind Gore. And lets see, how did that work out for the
country?
Of course the POPULAR election system we use leaves so much to be desired because of ballot
access and all the other duopolistic barriers to
equal participation by independents and minor parties. All of this violates the First Amendment and the Helsinki Accords.
Direct election without equal, fair , and easier ballot access rules in every single state, would be the ultimate gerrymander.
The congressional district system of allocating electors is full of problems — the most obvious of which is divorcing the connection between how votes are cast and who wins. Making every individual’s vote equal and equally meaningful is in fact the best way to protect liberty — which is why a national popular vote for president (with a majority system like instant runoff voting) and proportional representation are essential reforms.
For a libertarian to embrace winner-take-all forms of representation doesn’t make sense based on pragmatism (note how many LP votes are translating into seats in our current system) and principle (suppressing the voices and representation of those in a dissenting position is hardly pro-liberty)
Wow, that’s great #4. Democracy is not to be trusted. I wonder if the libertarians will get very far with that as a tagline in upcoming elections?
So what you are really saying is that people cannot be trusted with liberty. More importantly, liberty is so great people cannot be allowed to have it.
You are actually saying that, what.. representation is evil? Abstract representation is better than direct representation?
Perhaps you’re familiar with a system of checks and balances we have. If that is not adequate, exactly what does the electoral college bring to the table to further assist in “liberty ensurance”? Making sure rural states have more say than they would otherwise have? Forcing Christian theology down everyone else’s throat?
Why bother with elections, if it’s not about how much support a given candidate has.. objectively?
Unlimited democracy is the ultimate form of socialism, with voters voting for more and more largess from the ever growing state.
Absolutely. Unlimited democracy is NOT to be trusted. We are much better off without it.
Our best hope to salvage LIBERTY in America, in the world and for our posterity is to limit the scope of democracy as much as possible.
We must enshrine the principles of LIBERTY in our Constitution and prohibit the use of democracy to undermine our liberty.
As to the nonsense about the Bush election in 2000, there was no direct election and so looking at the aggregate of each state’s popular vote is a meaningless exercise. We have no idea what the vote totals would have been in a direct election. There was no “popular vote” cast, and never has been a popular vote cast for President and VP in American history. It is absolutely certain that if we had had direct election based on popular vote that the candidates chosen would have been different, the parties running would have been different, the promises made would have been different.
It is the balance of power with stong states vs. the federal government that has prevented the evil populist takeover by a total Hitleresque fascist clique in America. Other countries having PR and direct election of various kinds have not escaped.
WE must strengthen our states vs the Federal govt, not strengthen the Feds. WE can do this by reducing the power and scope of the Federal Govt (ideally by at least 90%) and reducing the state govts by at least half and by maintaining the Federal balance of an Executive branch that is elected by states.
Putting everything up to a popular democratic election is a disaster, as is proportional representation. It has failed in practice around the world. This is to be expected. The theoretical analysis of democratic systems also shows that it will always fail, if it is not severely limited in scope and power.
As to the LP winning elections. The current system (other than the terrible ballot access problems in some states) is actually ideal for 3rd parties to build, grow and eventually become a major party. The failure of the LP has been due to bad planning and poor leadership since the early 1980s, and the looters who controlled the party in the late 90s and early 00s.
“Putting everything up to a popular democratic election is a disaster, as is proportional representation. It has failed in practice around the world.”
You are so utterly and completely clueless that it is not even amusing any more. How has proportional representation failed Germany? How has it failed Finland? Sweden? Norway? Denmark? Spain? Portugal? Switzerland?
Germany: Hitler
Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark: Rampant Socialism
Spain: Fascist dictators and Socialism
Switzerland: last to let women vote has a tradition of limited democracy … but it’s getting worse now …
I think all states should apportion their electoral votes.
1. Minor parties and independents can get electoral votes in large states.
2. All states are in play — big candidates need to worry about flipping one or two votes in most states.
3. No more winning all electoral votes when you only got 45% of the vote in the state.
4. Much better representation of what the state’s voters want.
It’s worth noting that, a few years ago, Colorado voters defeated a ballot measure for a system similar to Maine’s and Nebraska’s.
By having a winner-take-all system, a state maximizes its impact on the presidential election process.
The only solution is to use nationwide popular vote and instant run-off voting. The anti-democratic ‘Electoral College’ must be abolished. I live in Nebraska and I definitely do not support this “Nebraska/Maine” system, because it is not a real alternative to the current system and it only encourages gerrymandering.
#9:
democracy is already limited by a system of checks and balances known as the Leglislative, Judicial, and Executive branches.
Abstracting the part of the whole system that SHOULD be democratic… elections… is totally ridiculous in the modern world. We do not have to coax reluctant little farming states into the union any more, and weighting their votes more heavily than others is likewise ridiculous.
Making elections a joke, in other words, is a bit TOO limiting on liberty.
Your amount of cognitive dissonance here is amazing. What exactly is so great about liberty, if you have to force people to act against their will (or NOT act in accordance with their will, in this case) to preserve it? Can you not see the ridiculousness of that stance?
That sounds like the flailing of someone who doesn’t want to face the truth about their political philosophy; it just plain doesn’t work. You sound like a communist that advocates for authoritarian rule to make the utopia come true. If it cannot come true democratically (with some checks and balances), then it’s a pipe dream, only to be used by those who thirst for power to control you.
#14:
it’s easy to say that winner takes all maximizes a state’s impact, but it’s wrong. If you are a winner take all state that is not competitive, you have no impact at all. Think about how much california, new york, massachusetts, Utah, and in fact nebraska and Maine matter in terms of actual electoral politics (not primaries). The answer is: practically none at all. No democrat has to promise anything to california to swing voters there.
However, witness in this last election: even though Obama was unlikely to win nebraska, and mccain was unlikely to win maine, they were both willing and able to target a lot (relatively speaking) of attention in select areas in each state to try to pry loose some of the “flexible” votes. Obama even succeeded in nebraska this year.
Neither state would have gotten two seconds of attention last cycle if they did not have split apportionment.
the problem is that competitive states lose influence (florida would NEVER do this), and non-competitive states FEAR that the same holds true for their already weak amount of influence. If they would wise up and see it’s the only way to get their influence back though… might even push enough states over the edge to sign on to a constitutional amendment to force the truly competitive states into it as well.
For the many brain dead MORONS on this list —
Majority rule = Democracy
Minority rule = Monarchy — Oligarchy = nonstop Kings, Queens, dictators, tyrants in world history with their gangs of flunkee supporters — since NO monarch can do his/her evil stuff by him/her self.
Nonstop indirect minority rule gerrymanders in U.S.A. history — starting in VA in 1618 (after the VA colony adult males could no longer assemble in person — VA legislative body created).
Same story in all early colonies.
Colony gerrymanders became State gerrymanders on 4 July 1776.
3 U.S.A. gerrymander systems (House, Senate, Electoral College) stuck over the State gerrymanders in the 1787 U.S.A. Constitution.
Result — the EVIL *modern* gerrymander govts in the U.S.A. and all 50 States — i.e. ALL de facto monarchies – oligarchies — by a few elite MONSTERS — Prezs, Guvs, Speakers, Senate majority leaders — giving orders to the party hacks in the gerrymander Congress and all 50 State gerrymander legislatures..
The rest of the People are totally ignored on a day to day basis.
REAL Democracy NOW via 100 percent Proportional Representation — regardless of Stone Age political MORONS — who love having minority rule regimes.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, 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 is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Hitler would have come to power sooner in Germany, if Germany had not used proportional representation in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Hitler’s party never got more than 40% of the popular vote. He only came to power because the Catholic Center deputies decided to support the Hitler party.
A recent history book (unfortunately I forget the name) discussed in detail all the political events of January 1933. Everyone on New Year’s Day in Germany and around the world thought that Hitler’s chances of taking power had just about disappeared, as of January 1, 1933. Yet by the end of January he was in power. The book describes the events of January 1933. Von Papen and Schleicher, the other two recent premiers, hated each other so much, they were each willing to support Hitler in order to stymie the other one. Also President Hindenburg’s son got behind Hitler, and the son influenced the father.
To Rob,
National Popular Vote absolutely guarantees that the big city machines will control elections in this country. Currently there are parts of America that get short shrift, but those parts will grow as candidates are forced to kowtow to the big numbers; Chicago, New York, La, etc. You are assuring the Democrat Party dominion.
Also, the Electoral College was a large part of Federalism, duly designed to avoid forcing the states into an electoral scheme controlled by the central government. States did not need to even hold elections if they didn`t want; the state legislature or even the governor could decide, and the College of Electors was the instruement where the state made it`s decision known. The idea of NPV abrogates that Federalism, forcing states into a straightjacketed electoral scheme.
It was one of the checks and balances; the central government could not force states to obey a standardized electoral scheme. The Founding Fathers understood that danger.
Our system works well, and has served us faithfully for over 220 years. NPV guarantees to bring the courts into elections on a regular basis, and will make vote fraud far more attractive than it already is.
If you think the EC is too much a rubber stamp, you should indeed think about reforming-and strengthening-it. Removing this system will only strengthen demogoguerie, vote fraud, and abuse.
#18 Susan, does the National Popular Vote proposal guarantee that the candidate who gets the “most” “popular votes” in primaries will receive the nomination of their political party?
Why are you satisfied with “most votes” and not a majority?
Does the National Popular Vote proposal guarantee that the voters in each State will even be voting from among the same candidates?
Does the National Popular Vote proposal have any provisions that would guarantee that voter qualifications and procedures would be same in all States?
What if Texas grants each voter 34 “popular votes”, one for each of its presidential electors? What if Texas extends the franchise in presidential elections to 16 year old voters, or even younger?
What if Texas requires a popular vote majority for the selection of its presidential electors? Do members of the compact use the “popular vote” from the general election or the runoff?
What if Texas has a popular election in September or March or even January to choose delegates to a convention that would appoint the 34 presidential electors for Texas on the November date designated by Congress?
Does the National Popular Vote proposal have any mechanism for resolving truly close elections, such as that of 1880?