Although the Michigan House passed HB 6610 (the National Popular Vote Plan bill) last week, there seems to be not enough time for the bill to pass the Senate. The legislature’s last day will probably be Thursday, December 18.
Although the Michigan House passed HB 6610 (the National Popular Vote Plan bill) last week, there seems to be not enough time for the bill to pass the Senate. The legislature’s last day will probably be Thursday, December 18.
Good. This has to be one of the stupidest ideas that has come along in years. It shows a real lack of understanding the need for our current process. The Electoral College works. The problem is that most states have tried to limit its ability to function. All or nothing states do little service to allow the College to function properly. Allowing the Mob to rule is a serious destructive force. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. The Roman Empire lasted 1000yrs because of being a Republic. Pure democracies, such as the Greeks, have only lasted a fraction of that time.
The traditional definition of “republic” and “democracy” both square with the idea of constitutional limits on what the government can do. The traditional difference between those two terms has been that republics have no royal person heading up the government…no king, no queen, no prince. Venice was famous for being a Republic, but what people meant by that was that there was no King of Venice.
The Roman Empire wasn’t a Republic. They had a dictator after Caesar took over.
And this wouldn’t make our county a pure democracy at all. It would just make our republic more representative of the peoples’ wants.
Richard G. – what good has come from our Electoral College?
Richard G., have you ever even read a history book? The Roman Republic lasted about 200-300 years, followed by the Roman Empire (which was NOT a Republic), which lasted for about 500 years.
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. 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 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.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
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 47 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
The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.
So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be “mob rule” in presidential elections, but whether the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. In 2004, candidates spent over two thirds of their visits and two-thirds of their money in just 6 states and 99% of their money in just 16 states, while ignoring the rest of the country.
The current system does NOT provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
susan, susan, susan:
The Electorial College has worked just fine in the 20th Century USA! Just fine for the duopoly establishment that is! [You know the folks whom got us into this 21st night mare, the Democans and the Republicrats!]
Is the value of Issues over shadowing day to day realities? You know, no electorial votes for DC [WHICH SHOULD NOT ILLEGALLY BECOME A STATE], Guam, PR, VI, American Samoa, other Pacific out posts of our Fascist, Imperial, Global American Empire.
Oh, you forgot these folks! These fellow Americans do not seem to register on your faulty radar!
Shame, shame, shame, you racist bigot!
straight male WASP from KCMO
The Electoral College is a far better system for electing a President than national popular vote of any kind. We would have long ago gone the way of Nazi Germany without it.
We need to strengthen the rights of states relative to the Federal Government. This can be done by following the constitution and limiting the power of the Federal Government and the States, but especially the Feds. We need to strengthen the EC by adopting the Maine/Nebraska system in all 50 states.
If America ever adopts any form of direct election for P/VP, you can expect to live in a totalitarian banana republic within 8 years. Get ready to emigrate and hope some other country will welcome the American refugees.
Without the electoral college, Samuel Tilden would have been elected president in 1876 instead of Rutherford B. Hayes. Tilden’s election would probably have been better for the United States. The south would have not felt so beleagured in defeat, and much of the misery of southern history in the period 1873 on might have been avoided.
Without the electoral college, Grover Cleveland would have been re-elected in 1888. Instead we got Benjamin Harrison. Historians generally feel Cleveland was a better president than Harrison.
Without the electoral college, Al Gore would have been elected in 2000. Everyone will have an opinion about whether that would have been better.
I think it bears saying, even if we do achieve a national popular vote, preferably with a runoff later on, it’s still difficult if close to impossible to have someone other than a Democrat or Republican in the White House.
I’m kind of interested in the way the Swiss have a sort of plural-presidency, whereas no single party has control, and the presidents rotate sharing power during their terms.
In all honesty though, I think the office of the president has outlived it’s usefulness. We don’t need kings anymore. Fundamental change is needed.
The Electoral College brings a balance to the rights of small and large states in selecting a president. The Electoral College brings a balance between dense populations with each with minor land holdings and large land owners. Considering the need of the masses of food and resources, the masses should give their large land owners a very loud voice, however the large land owners should not rule from on high either. Can’t you see the balance the EC gives? The masses need the property owners for resources and stability of the resources, else the masses will just build over top of them. The EC has a simple philosophy it follows. The largest groups shoup not be able to stomp out the voice of the littlest, thus the EC attempts ( and does it well) to bring these needs into balance. Can’t you even see that. We need both voices.
NPV only listens to the large masses, that is a huge mistake. The huge masses, will too easily selfishly control and destroy resources. Furthermore, NPV, attempts to lay the foundation of destroying the soveriegnty of each state. Very destructive.
The NPV acts within the constitutional right of each state as laid out by the founding fathers. The constitution grants each state legislature full control over the appointment of electors. If a state legislature wanted to toss a coin to award electors, or give them to whoever got the fewest votes in the state, or give it them to the winners of a battle royale, they would be perfectly within their constitutional bounds. The NPV is just one of the many potential ways legislators can opt to award electors.
thinkwp: I undestand your arguement, however, the attempt is to circumnavigate the Constitution without Constitutionally changing the Law and getting 75% of the states to agree. This law is an attempt to bipass the Constitution. This law is also an attempt to create a treatise between states that support it with-out calling it so. Treatise between the states are explicitly forbidden in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 10 which states,
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
NPV is banned by the Constitution and is illegal. It is tauntamount to an alliance or treaty between states.
If you want to eliminate the EC, then do it within the LAW as proscribed in the Constitution, and add an Amendment. Otherwise you are outside of the LAW irregardless of states rights in choosing their electors.
Richard,
Your comments in #8 are nonsense.
You should know better.
Without the Electoral College, Presidential campaigns and voting would take a completely different form. We have no idea what the turnout or voting WOULD HAVE been. The actions of the candidates, voters and election officials would be radically different.
Different candidates would be chosen to appeal to the drooling ignorant masses without regard to any national and state interests. Whoever could put together the most appealing packages of promises of fascist state socialism would have been chosen to run.
The campaigns would have focused on TOTAL VOTES instead of winning Electoral votes, state by state. Thus the campaigns would have focused on large, heavily populated cites and screw the rest of the people.
Massive voter fraud would ensue, as the one party controlled areas would have had turnouts at or exceeding 100% of the eligible voting population in order to steal the election. Wyoming could cast hundreds of thousands of extra Republican votes. Likewise, the Chicago and DC vote totals would likely have exceeded their actual populations. This would have lead to even greater fraud, massive coutermeasures, complete distrust, violence, a breakdown in the system.
Can you spell “Banana Republic.”
Elimination of the EC is the formula for creating the United States of banana eating monkeys.
Richard, don’t be so simplistic. You cannot support any of those claims in #8. The whole history of the US would have changed, not just a different winner. The rules of a game determine how the game is played and influence the outcome, but they also determine who will be playing the game in the first place.
Richard G:
Interstate agreements are made all the time. In some cases they need to be approved by Congress. The Supreme Court has ruled on this in the past and considered them constitutional, with few exceptions.
So, NPV is not banned by the Constitution or illegal.
The NPV makes no provision for popular nomination of candidates for the presidency.
The fact that the advocates of NPV do not address this issue shows a great deal of dishonesty, disingenuity, and/or dishonesty on the part of its advocates.
This is especially perverse in the case of Michigan, where voters were denied the right to freely participate in the nomination process by Chairman Dean and his supplicants. Even President-“elect” Obama went along with this charade by withdrawing from the Michigan primary. Michigan and Florida should form a compact to hold a direct nominating primary for the presidency.
It is surprising that Susan is concerned about the concentration of candidates on a few States given the current nomination process where candidates virtually live in Iowa and New Hampshire for months or years prior to the election.
It is a patent absurdity that 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. This presumes that the voter concerns of these States are different from those in other States, or that a candidate would campaign on local issues in each State – hardly the sort of candidate who should be elected on the basis of the national popular vote.