On May 16, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas vetoed SB 270, the bill for the National Popular Vote Plan. There is no chance his veto can be overridden, since the legislature decided not to return to consider overriding any veto. If the bill had not been vetoed, Vermont would have become the 5th state to approve the plan.
Damn.
Thats great!!
What sayeth the VT Guv about Approval Voting for Prez/VP — vote for 1 or more, highest wins (along with a definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A. via a constitutional amendment) ???
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-brmail773sbmay17,0,6852757.story
Douglas has voted both majority voting for Congress (through instant runoff voting) and one-person, one-vote elections for president. I doubt he’s going to win any “democracy advocate” of the year prizes.
Hard to say which of his veto statements is more laughable. On National Popular Vote, he goes so far to say that it “would fundamentally alter the presidential election method prescribed in the U.S. Constitution” — apparently not realizing that no presidential election method is prescribed in the Constitution, and that for years many states didn’t old elections at all for president.
He also suggests one-person, one-vote would “upset the delicate balance among states’. Hmm — let’s see. More money was spent by presidential campaigns in Florida in the peak season of 2004 than in 45 other states combined. “Delicate balance”?
Of course it would be a fundamental change in the presidential election method for each State to appoint its electors on the basis of the popular vote in other States, and it would preclude election of the President by the House of Representatives.
Mr. Richie apparently would argue that it was not a fundamental change in the presidential election method if the States decided to appoint their presidential electors on the basis of some physical attribute of those appointed – largest tits, heaviest body weight, oldest, youngest, etc; because such appointment would be in a manner directed by the legislature as authorized by the Constitution, and therefore not a fundamental change.
If you want fundamental change, then change the Constitution, so that Congress also has the authority to regulate the manner of election, including the nomination process.
Why would anyone want to maintain the current nomination process, or attempt to paper it over with a final election. How would the national popular vote plan handle an election like 1880?
“How would the national popular vote plan handle an election like 1880?”
Stupid question — a win for James Abram Garfield, as he had more votes.
Adoption of the National Popular Vote Plan by enough states to put it into effect is the most likely means for the Article II to be changed. In other words, Congress and the state legislatures would probably rather change Article II, than see the National Popular Vote Plan in use.
A proposed Constitutional amendment could simply rewrite Article II, section one, and also deal with the restriction on foreign-born people being president, since that is also in Article II, section one. A proposed Constitutional amendment on presidential elections might be a simple national popular vote, or it might include a run-off of some type.
Although this is very unlikely, it is conceivable that John McCain would prefer to choose Arnold Schwarzenegger as his vice-presidential running mate, but he can’t do that now because of Article II, Section One.
at least one governor has got it right, and has enough guts to vote it down
Re 7: How many more votes did Garfield have in 1880? What percentage was this of all votes cast?
Would there have been a recount if that election had been subject to the NPV compact as currently proposed?
What about 1960? Would Nixon’s popular vote victory have been recognized?
Nixon did not have a popular vote plurality, nor a popular vote majority, in 1960. The only way anyone thinks he did, is by subtracting 6/11ths of Kennedy’s Alabama votes, on the grounds that since Kennedy only had 5 candidates for presidential elector in that state (and Alabama had 11 electoral votes), therefore 6/11ths of Kennedy’s popular votes should be taken away from him.
That is a counting method that has never been applied in any other presidential election. For example, in 1948, Truman did not have a full slate of electors pledged to him on the Tennessee ballot. He only had 10 candidates pledged to him, and Tennessee had 12 electoral votes. But no source every subtracted 2/12ths of Truman’s popular vote in Tennessee in 1948.
Norman Thomas only had one candidate for presidential elector in Minnesota in 1932, and Minnesota had 11 electoral votes, but no source ever shrunk Norman Thomas’ popular vote in Minnesota to only 1/11th of what he actually got. I could list several hundred more examples. I hope the point is clear.
As to 1880, I don’t know why anyone brought it up. 1880 was just a normal election, in which the person who got the most popular votes also got the most electoral votes.
Re #9 So the purpose of the NPV compact is to cause a train wreck which will then force Congress to propose a constitutional amendment (as for example happened with the 12th Amendment)?
A better analogy might be the adoption of the 26th amendment, which said states could not set the voting age above 18 years. The only reason it passed, was that Congress had passed a bill setting the voting age at 18, and in 1970 in Oregon v Mitchell the US Supreme Court upheld that law as to federal elections. The chaos involved with having two sets of lists of registered voters (one list for federal elections that included young people, another list for state and local elections that didn’t) seemed so horrible, the states and Congress rushed the 26th Amendment into existence.
#11. Read the proposed NPV compact. Why do the votes in Alabama cast for the Democrat electors count as a vote for a presidential slate headed by John Kennedy?
Some accountant in Sacramento is going to add the votes into the total and declare that California’s electoral votes are going to go Kennedy, while his twin brother in Montgomery is going to count them as being for an elector who is going to vote for Harry Byrd?
You really don’t know why I brought up 1880 and 1960? If there were a constitutional amendment, cases like 1880 and 1960 would not have been a problem.
In 1960, the ballots would have been consistent across the country, and voters who wished to vote for Harry Byrd rather than John Kennedy would have been able to do so.
In 1880, there would have been either a recount procedure, or a runoff.
And you haven’t really addressed the real issue, why should popular votes from Florida be used to determine the winner of the election, when they were excluded from determining the Democrat candidate, and counted at a 50% discount with regard to the Republicans?
The States should take the bull by the horns and legislate a non-partisan primary for early September, where each voter may cast two votes. Any candidate that receives 5% of the vote will advance to the general election ballot.
At the general election, each voter could again cast two votes. The candidate with the most votes would be the Presidential winner, and the candidate with the second most votes would be the Vice Presidential winner.
You can’t count on a cuckoo decision by Hugo Black.
Congress certainly didn’t set out to have different voting ages for State and federal elections. If the Supreme Court had made a sane decision they would have either respected the right of States to set qualifications for legislative elections, and thereby for Congress; or could have imposed unform ages for all elections by judicial fiat under a perverse interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
What happens under the NPV compact, if a State sets the voting age to 16, or permits permanent resident alien to vote? What about if a State doesn’t deny suffrage to convicted felons?
How do you know that less scrupulous election officials won’t look the other way at voting irregularities?
Hugo Black couldn’t do anything all by himself. There were 4 votes that Congress could set the voting age for all elections (under the Equal Protection Clause), and 4 votes that Congress couldn’t, and Hugo Black split the difference and said Congress can do it for federal elections but not state elections. But Hugo Black couldn’t have got away with that without the votes of the 4 justices who thought Congress could set the voting age for all elections. So if anyone thinks Hugo Black was cuckoo, it seems they must agree that 5 justices were cuckoo.
There is no problem calculating the national popular presidential vote. The Federal Election Commission does it after every presidential election. The FEC must have this data, to know which parties deserve general election public funding.
It is true that the activist wing of the Supreme Court was complicit in Hugo Black’s decision.
The Electoral College is a great system. NPV is a dangerous idea that should be decisively squashed. Yes, the FEC can tally popular votes, but not in time to get a final result for January 20. The NPV would reqire a national recount in a close election, not a recount in a couple of close states.
The Electoral college avoids this problem. More importantly, the Electoral College reinforces the federal nature of our country. We are electing the President of the United States, not the President of 300 Million Americans.
Finally, the “claim” that the Electoral College is “undemocratic” is wrong. We are a republic, not a democracy, and even if you look at things as a democracy, why shouldn’t the states be the units of democracy instead of individual citizens.
Save the Electoral College. It’s good for America, good for our freedom.
The Electoral College gerrymander system —
half the popular votes in gerrymander areas (States, State districts (NE, ME) and DC) to get 270 of 538 E.C. votes) = about 25 percent of ALL popular votes —- since 1832.
ANY body who defends the E.C. is an EVIL ANTI-Democracy math MORON — lots and lots of such New Age MORONS in the small States since 1789 who LOVE having minority rule in choosing each Prez/VP.
See the 1860 minority rule election for Prez Lincoln (about 40 percent of the popular votes) and the resulting about 620,000 D-E-A-D Americans in the horrific 1861-1865 Civil War.
Of course history means NOTHING to Stone Age math M-O-R-O-N-S.
Remedy — regardless of MORONS.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
Approval Voting for NONPARTISAN Prez/VP – vote for 1 or more, highest win — pending advanced head to head math.
It is encouraging that in less than two years, the National Popular Vote bill has been signed into law in Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Illinois—states possessing 19% of the electoral votes necessary to bring this law into effect (50 of 270). The bill has passed one-sixth of the legislative chambers in the U.S.—one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Vermont, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. The bill is currently endorsed by 1005 state legislators—440 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 565 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
To be involved in the National Popular Vote bill effort . . .
You can sign up to get email updates – http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/getemailupdates.php
You can tell a friend- http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/tellafriend.php
You can help get the word out and show your support.
Distribute literature at political, civic, or other meeting, convention, or conference.
Post on discussion groups.
Write letters to editors, OpEds, and/or blog.
Up-to-date information and materials are at http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php
The Electoral College, as set forth in the Constitution, is not a single system. All the US Constitution says is that states can choose presidential electors any way they wish. The Electoral College is therefore almost completely open-ended. The Florida state legislature in December 2000 was busy passing a bill saying the legislature should choose the electors for the 2000 election. The founding fathers thought the electors would exercise independent judgment. In the early days, about half the states let each US House district choose its own presidential elector.
Because the system is so open-ended, it is wildly subject to manipulation. The voters would have a fit if the state legislatures started appointing the electors. There is also the danger that there will be a tie.
Whether we use the electoral college has nothing to do with whether we are a democracy or a republic. “Democracy” can include within its definition provision for a constitution that controls what the majority can do. The United States is a constitutional democracy. We are also a Republic. All “Republic” means is a democratic system without a monarch. If you don’t agree with these defintions, tell us what your definitions are.
The real reason that the National Popular Plan has been veteod by 3 Republican governors is that by making every vote count, it would increase voter turnout – and Democrats tend to do better when voter turnout is high.
A large majority of the public supports electing the president by popular vote. That is why the legislature of the small state of Hawaii was able to override Governor Lingle’s veto this year.
Democracy = Majority Rule – direct or indirect
monarchy = minority rule by 1 – direct or indirect
oligarchy = minority rule by 2 or more – direct or indirect
Nothing more and nothing less.
Monarchy regimes are de facto oligarchies since even the most EVIL monarch needs stooges to do the dirty work — killing, enslaving, etc. — Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, etc.
The U.S.A. has been an EVIL and VICIOUS gerrymander oligarchy since day 1.
ALL State regimes are EVIL and VICIOUS gerrymander oligarchies since day 1.
State Democracy exceptions — when ALL the Electors are voting on a statewide ballot question.
This is the New Dark Age of massive ignorance about BASIC stuff.
See the armies of young MORONS on Jay Leno – Jaywalking All Stars [of brain dead ignorance].
How about a quite possible 269-269 TIE in the timebomb Electoral College in Nov. 2008 — making the 2000 Bush v. Gore stuff in Florida seem trivial by comparison ???
Re #21, paragraph three:
“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” — John Adams
“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.” — Fisher Ames, known as one of America’s “forgotten” Founding Fathers
“Democracy is the most vile form of government… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” — James Madison, who wrote the Constitution
Re: #22
Election of electors from congressional districts was atypical. Generally, when electors were chosen by popular vote, but not statewide popular vote, they were chosen from electoral districts specifically delineated for that purpose. In some cases, these were single member districts, in other cases multi-member.
In almost all the cases where the electors were chosen from congressional districts, the additional 2 electors were not chosen by by statewide vote, being chosen either by the legislature, or in one case by the electors chosen from congressional districts.
Maine and Nebraska are anomalies, not only because they elect electors by congressional district, but also because they elect two electors by statewide vote.
Re:22 you are right to a degree,we are a Constitutional democracy NOW,because of the 17th amendment,the Founding fathers BELIEVED IN and CREATED a Constitutional Republic,the 17th amendment to the constitution was the start of our downfall from a republic,which is why it needs repealed.
Thomas DiLorenzo wrote a great piece about the case for repealing the 17th Amendment, which is available on the Web.
I agree with him, but it’s not going to happen.
#25 How many of the 18 States with voter petitions for State constitutional amendments have blown up ???
How many EVIL monarchies and oligarchies have blown up — by domestic revolts and/or foreign wars — in 6,000 plus years ???
Gee – why did the American colony folks in 1773-1776 revolt against the British monarchy- oligarchy ???
REAL Democracy NOW — via 100 percent proportional representation — regardless of New Age math and history MORONS — akin to ignorant EVIL BARBARIANS from pre-history.