1. Good luck Mr. Nelson, from your state of Florida.

2. Totally moronic definition of Elector.

   Will pre-born folks and foreigners (Russians, Chinese, etc.) be voting for Prez in some States ???

   UNIFORM definition of Elector in ALL parts of the U.S.A. — way too difficult for New Age gerrymander MORONS in the gerrymander Congress to understand —

   obviously U.S.A. citizen, 18 plus, not in jail after legal conviction, not crazy (like gerrymander MORONS).

   P.R. and A.V. — to save the U.S.A. from the EVIL gerrymander MORONS.

   Where is the recall language regarding gerrymander MORONS in the nearly dead U.S.A. Constitution ???

3. Badly written. Typical Congress. In Section 1, “jointly” should be “individually”, and “The electors in each State” should be “The electors of each State” to mvoe it from geographical to status-based and thereby not exclude overseas military and diplomats who have official residences in the States. Puerto Rico is neither a state nor a territory, but a commonwealth, and under this section would be excluded. Ditto any other U.S. possessions. Section 2 may actually clarify a constitutional gap on who determines Presidential qualifications, but moving election operations out of state hands is a power centralization that is unnecessary.

   And no actual abolishing of the Electoral College is mentioned either.

4. Baby steps, baby steps. [But isn’t it sad that a bunch of us grass roots patriots and every day poly sci types have a better grasp of the details than the duly elected member of Congress?]

5. Nope, Citi, that’s just normal. That’s why there are 434 Milton Bradleys in Congress and only one Parker Brothers.

6. Abolishing the electoral college would be a terrible mistake. This movement is rooted in ignorance. Among the many reasons to preserve the electoral college, probably the most important is the fact that direct elections inevitably would lead to “campaigns” among regional candidates. e.g. … The candidate of the Chicago machine vs. the candidate of the NY machine vs. the candidate of the L.A. machine vs. the candidate of the Houston-Dallas syndicate, etc. etc.

7. The EVIL current Electoral College —

   Half the votes in half the gerrymander areas needed for 270 of 538 E.C. votes = about 28 percent of ALL popular votes = ANTI-Democracy ====== powermad Presidents since 1933 especially.

   How many State and local regimes survive by having executive / judicial officers directly elected by the PEOPLE ???

8. #7: Perhaps there are too few states for so many people. The people could reconstitute the states into perhaps 360 state jurisdictions with the existing structure of the constitution.

   Consider Art. 4, Sec. 3. It says “New states may be admitted by the Congress in this union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures concerned as well as of the Congress.”

   Clearly, the Constitution implies that a separation and formation by a part of the population of a state from the remainder of the population of a state in order to form a new state for admission in the union is absolutely forbidden. So, a state legislature has no constitutional authority to ‘deannex’ a part of itself to allow the formation of new state by the people. Nor does the constitution recognize any authority for the people of a state to voluntarily and peaceably ‘divorce’ from one another into two or more new states.

   Nor may the populations of parts of two or more states, ‘merge’ to form a new state in the union without the consent of the respective legislatures and Congress.

   Taken together the clauses of this section raise question which are difficult to resolve logically. On the one hand, if partition and admission are strictly forbidden, then whence the authority and purpose of Congress and the respective legislatures to consent to the formation and admission of new states from parts of existing states?

   Can parts of states ‘merge’ into a new state or can they not? We all know W. Virginia was formed from a part of Virginia while North and South Dakota were never one state. Texas is allegedly entitled to split into up to five states according the Act of Annexation of the Texas Republic. If there is an equality among the states, then why do not all states have the right to partition into up to five states? If applied uniformly and exercised this right could enlarge the union to as many as 250 states. The people of California might benefit greatly from dividing into five states – or fifty.

   Given precedent and constitutional ambiguity, there may actually be no prohibition against the subdivision of the 50 states into 360 states by act of Congress and the state legislatures. This does not seem to require a constitutional amendment at all. It’s already in there.

   Or, the people have the natural right to revolution and secession to form any number of new states and apply to rejoin the union or not.

   I use 360 as merely an illustrative number. It could be almost any number. Given the economic implosion of the United States this line of thinking may not be all that theoretical or speculative.

9. To all readers: My fundamental point above and elsewhere is that the constitution has a potential to scale to accommodate growth in population and preserve, within limits, popular representation and control. The political conditions today may be reasonably construed as a failure to scale.

   This failure has an historic pattern which strongly suggest a deliberate policy maintained over generations of politicians to suppress the many and to favor and enrich the few – a state which is neither a democracy nor a republic – an elite autocracy.

   If one agrees with this assessment in general terms then certain choices become very personal and concrete.

10. 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

11. 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.

12. Generally I do not post on blogs, but I would like to say that this post really forced me to do so, really useful information.

13. Generally I do not post on blogs, but I would like to say that this post really forced me to do so, really useful information.

14. Любой работник двумя годами моложе вас — неопытен, любой работник пятью годами старше вас — отсталый старик.

15. thanks !! very helpful post!

16. I must say that you provide genuine, quality information. Thanks for this!

    BTW, dpn’t you think your blog needs a better wordpress template?

17. There are many game enthusiasts who are discovered getting
    irritated when it comes to making use of cheats plus hacks.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.