1. Critics have criticized the National Popular Vote bill because “11 colluding states” (as they call them) could theoretically impose a national popular vote on the country.

   Although the 11 most populous states contain 56% of the U.S. population and a majority of the electoral votes, political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any issue. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red” states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Indeed, as noted above, these same 11 states could, under the current system, theoretically elect a President in every single presidential election. This does not happen because the 11 largest states have little in common politically.

   The National Popular Vote bill becomes effective when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted it.

   The National Popular Vote bill has passed 27 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii (a small state), Illinois (large state), New Jersey (large state), Maryland (average-sized state), and Washington (average-sized). These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. These numbers suggest that that the National Popular Vote compact will probably be brought into effect by action by roughly half of the states. Such a group of states would represent a majority of the American people.

   The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

   In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.

2. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.

   see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

3. 72% OF NEVADA VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL

   A survey of 800 Nevada voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 72% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

   By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 80% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 68% among Others.

   By age, support for a national popular vote was 75% among 18-29 year olds, 61% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 73% for those older than 65.

   By gender, support for a national popular vote was 80% among women and 63% among men.

   By race, support for a national popular vote was 73% among whites (representing 74% of respondents), 51% among African Americans (representing 8% of respondents), 80% among Hispanics (representing 14% of respondents), and 64% among Others (representing 4% of respondents).

   see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

4. mvymvy = susan = troll

5. Suppose you are for National Popular Vote.
   The concept is to make “all votes equal”.

   BUT…if the ballot access law for President is UNEQUAL on a state by state basis, then “not all votes would be equal”, but rather states that have easier ballot access would be more desirous and have more weight, on an opportunity cost basis for a political party.

   National Popular Vote is Unconstitutional. However, if eneacted anyway, there must be ballot reform, so that ALL states have the same ballot access standards for President.

6. “Susan” has a real problem. Her presence on this post as “mvmvy” shows the length by which those who support NPV will go to continue the brainwashing of the public and pushing their rhetoric.

7. Bill Lussenhelde says:

   “National Popular Vote is Unconstitutional”

   The US Constitution says:

   “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress” [Article 2, Section 1)

   Readers: You decide.

8. #7 What happens if both candidates on a presidential slate are from the same State; may a State lawfully provide for a manner of appointment that could require its electors to violate the Constitution?

9. #7 What if a State permits each voter to cast one vote per presidential elector, allocated between presidential slates as they see fit. Aren’t members of the compact obligated to count all such votes?

10. #8,

    Mr. Riley – since the 12th amendment prohibits a president and vice president from being citizens of the same state, and since the NPV would require allocation of EC votes to a single slate, your worry is really that a major American party would “slip up” and nominate two people from the same state. I’m not going to lose too much sleep over that possibility.

    And by the way, there’s nothing in our CURRENT system which would prevent a state from allocating their EC votes in that manner. So your point eludes me.

    And actually, I believe that if there were an NPV compact in force and a state or states decided to allocate their votes to any candidate other than the candidate achieving a plurality of popular votes nationwide, the interstate compact itself would provide a legal basis upon which to seek redress. Under our current EC system, there is no constitutional basis to prohibit it “rogue” assignments of EC votes. If you too are a 35 year old natural born citizen of the US as I am, Vermont could give their 3 votes to you and me – constitutionally!

    You have presented no foundation for your premise that the NPV compact is “unconstitutional.” In fact, you may have unwittingly presented another argument FOR approving the NPV.

    #9 – Can’t happen. That’s the point of the compact. It is a legally binding interstate agreement (also provided for under the US Constitution).

    You seem not to understand that the NPV interstate compact simply provides that participating states will allocate all of their own electors to the Pres./VP pair which wins the majority of popular votes nationwide. Those states would not “count” any other state’s EC votes, any more than any individual state currently “counts” any other states’ EC votes. Under the NPV, as it is so under the current EC system, the “counting” is done by the President of the Senate.

    So there’s no change at all in how the EC votes are tallied to determine a winner. That process will continue as it has since the first Presidential election.

    What the NPV will change is how participating individual states will allot their own EC votes, and only their own EC votes, a right they are explicitly given by some very simple and incontrovertible wording in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

    Cheers.

11. 1. Since there is currently NO uniform definition of Elector what is to stop a *progressive* / *reactionary* regime from having persons 0 to 18 be Electors and/or FOREIGN [or even outer space] persons be Electors (at least for choosing a Prez/VP) — to stack the NPV popular votes deck ???

    2. Equal Protection Clause

    National

    AC 50,000,001
    GW 50,000,000

    AC = Anti-Christ
    GW = George Washington clone

    State of Utopia – which detects the AC at the last second living in such State under a rock in its backyard cave.

    AC 1
    GW 10,000,000

    Obviously a BLATANT violation of the Equal Protection Clause — regardless of the armies of New Age constitutional law MORONS hyping statutory fixes for constitutional problems.

    SORRY — the Equal Protection Clause TRUMPS Art. II, Sec. 1 (and the 12th Amdt) IF the Electors / Voters are voting for Prez Electors (See also 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — with its mention of Prez Electors).

    A reminder for history MORONS — the 14th Amdt came about due to the EVIL ex-slave States in 1865-1866 trying to continue slavery using vagrancy laws, etc. on the ex-slaves. The so-called *radical* Republicans were NOT amused.

    Proper remedy – constitutional amdt.

    Uniform definition of Elector – obviously U.S.A. citizen 18 plus years old (exceptions — mentally ill and convicted criminals in jail).

    NONPARTISAN nomination and election of all elected executive officers and judges using Approval Voting – vote for 1 or more, highest win — pending MAJOR public education about head to head Condorcet math and tiebreakers.

    Repeal of the accumulated *negative* stuff about Electors in the States.

    The Sun will continue to rise in the east.

12. Demo Rep –

    If I’m not mistaken the Anti-Christ recently ran for election and won, but as Vice President.

13. #12 And not as Prez — claiming to be a *natural born* citizen ???

14. #8 The 12th Amendment does not require that the President and Vice President be from different States.
    It requires that at least one of the persons that a presidential elector votes for be from a State other than that of the elector.

    So at present, a major party might be ill-advised to nominate candidates from the same State. But if the NPV scheme were in effect, it might not. A party could nominate two candidates from California or New York, pile up “popular” votes from those States and then require the electors from other States to vote for the two Californians, which the other States are quite free to do so under the 12th Amendment.

    Meanwhile, the California electors could not vote for both of the Californians, but it might not matter. They could split their votes, with 28 voting for the presidential candidate and 28 voting for the vice presidential candidate. Coupled with the induced vote from other members of the compact, and some volunteer stragglers, the Californians would probably receive a majority of the electoral votes.

    You’ve successfully circumvented the anti-nepotism clause of the 12th Amendment, that prevents a State’s electors from voting for two favorite sons (or daughters).

15. #8 Part 2

    You didn’t understand my exploit. When (if) you voted in November, you did not cast an “electoral vote” you cast a vote for an presidential slate. The NPV compact would require your vote to be counted in the so-called NPV total.

    But there is nothing in the US Constitution that prevents a State from letting its voters (whether citizens or not, or even resident in the State) from casting 34 votes distributed among one or more presidential slates, and then using those votes to determine whose that State’s electors are.

    If a State had 8 million voters, and each of them cast an average of 33.5 votes, then that State’s certificate of ascertainment would show 268 million votes cast for various candidates.

    Members of a NPV compact would be legally required to include all 268 million votes in their own computation of the national popular vote count.

16. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php

    888-word interstate compact

    “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote”

    Subtract 222 words and get 666 words ???

    NO uniform definition of Elector in the States / D.C. in the agreement / compact — to permit all sorts of EVIL machinations about who can vote for a Prez/VP.

17. Mr Riley –

    It amuses me that so many of the arguments made against the NPV conjur up such unlikely possibilities of reckless or even anarchistic behavior by modern politicians who are creatures of and slaves to a party system. Particularly so when many of the possibilities cited are quite possible under the present system of allocating electoral votes. Torturous arguments are made on the slimmest chance of barely possible events in opposition to NPV, yet in doing so we are asked to ignore a fact, a condition which exists RIGHT NOW – that the current system effectively disenfranchises millions if “minority” party voters living in predictably “blue” states or “red” states. Every four years those Americans go to the polls and vote, knowing that they might just as well go to a Ku Klux Klan meeting and nominate an openly gay, Muslim black American as the next chapter president.

    It almost sounds like this:

    “Republican votes for president in MA,RI,VT, NY, etc. don’t matter because they’re always going Democratic, and Democratic votes in TX, OK, UT, MT, etc. don’t matter because those states are always going Democratic. Pshaw! Who cares about such trivialities? Let’s talk about what happens if a county party chairman in Texas narfs down a pound of loco weed, goes insane and casts his vote for a Green Party candidate.”

    The 12th amendment says the following:

    “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves”

    Even if I concede your point that that that clause was crafted to prevent electors from trying to elect two candidates from their own state, the point is MOOT once the NPV is put into place because the entire point of the NPV is to get away from this insane system we have of relying on party commissioners and other apparatchniks from casting our votes “for” us several weeks after we all supposedly “voted.” So I say this – if one party decides they want to nominate two candidates from California, or two from Texas (there are one or two big states that are red, you know) so be it. If the electorate – the electorate of the people – decide to elect them by a plurality, so be it. Nothing “unconstitutional” about that, since the states still have the right to allocate electors as they wish, and no state will have to “force” their electors cast their votes for two candidates from the same state, so the precious anachronistic charm of the Electoral College you evidently so revere will still be intact, and the Electoral College will do nothing to violate the 12th amendment.

    Life will go on.

    As for #15, I have to say you raise an interesting point. I’m sure we’ll hear more about it from some deep red state like Utah or Idaho as the count of states signing on approaches 270. And their action will no doubt be draped in patriotic cloth by stout defenders of the Constitution and readers of the minds of our Founding Fathers who clearly wanted the president to be chosen by citizens of only 10-12 states every four years. Not big states. Not small states. Just states with a populace of political duality.

    Yeah…that’s what they wanted.

    You know what? If it comes to that, then we’ll have another big argument. Or maybe we’ll just use some fifth grade math and reduce the number of votes cast for the popular vote winner in that state by dividing by 34. Oh? No one has to spend all 34 votes? OK, then…I guess we end up back at USSC to dust off the old one man one vote argument. Heck, there might even be enough cons on the court now to overturn Reynolds v. Sims.

    Keep picking nits and keep blowing smoke. I’m sure you’ll convince some people that it’s actually a GOOD thing that the current system of choosing electors effectively, systematically, ignores the vote they cast.

18. Demo Rep –

    #16 – Your math is all wrong. First you DIVIDE 888 by 4 (the number of years of the presidential cycle) and then you multiply by 3 (the number of electoral votes the smallest states have) and THEN you end up with 666.

    By the way – what’s the exact date of the next Rapture? I missed the last 38 of them. Well, the scheduled ones, anyway.

19. Let’s try to keep the discussion focused. I’m sure that there are other forums where your personal fantasies of Ku Klux Klan lesbians would be more appropriate.

    #17 The 12th Amendment provision restricting electors was based on a similar provision from the original Constitution, where electors cast two undifferentiated electoral votes. In fact, some electors have cast their two electoral votes for a candidate from the same State, but it was other than their own, and always legal. Even in the 2008 election, the Minnesota Secretary of State tried to keep a party from nominating a Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate from the same State (IIRC, they were from New York). So if it is any consolation, you aren’t the only one who was ignorant.

    The intent of the provision is to prevent a State, particularly Virginia, from controlling both offices, or if they did it would be based on support from other States.

    But your NPV scheme opens up the possibility of voters in a large State coercing electors from other States to do what the electors from the large State are constitutionally barred from doing.

    If one State can divide lawfully cast votes by 34, why can’t another deduct a percentage for votes cast by persons who would not have been eligible to vote in their State, or add a percentage for candidates who weren’t on the ballot in another State? Proponents have asserted that the election officials would merely have to look at the Certificate of Ascertainment from other States and enter it into their national totals. Can you show me the part in the NPV compact that permits division by 34?

    What if a State decides to hold a runoff election to determine which electors are appointed. Which votes are counted, the first election or the runoff?

20. Jimmy –

    If we excluded “fantasies,” all of your posts to this thread would be expunged because that’s pretty much what your “what if’s” are – borderline fantasies.

    Let’s cut to the chase, shall we? Why do you fear election of the President and Vice President by a plurality of popular votes? And be honest…don’t hide behind the usual, fictitious depictions of what the Founding Fathers “wanted.” You’ll be hard-pressed to find a word in Madison’s notes to the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist papers, or the writings of any other Founding Father, for that matter, that the EC system was devised to protect the “rights” of “small” states against those of “large states.” Certainly the Connecticut Compromise was specifically designed to create such a balance of power in the legislature, but not in the election of the President and Veep…that can only be asserted by weak inference not supported by any facts.

    But back to the essential matter – why do you distrust democracy so? And why do you think it’s a GOOD thing that millions of voters are systematically disenfranchised every four years, and millions more given mathematically disproportionate say in who should head the Executive Branch? Please answer those questions instead of playing trivial dodge ball.

    And as for the accusation of “ignorance…” well, gosh, Jimmy. That one really hurt. Ouchy!

21. Popular vote. Most people aren’t even aware of the issues. That one poll deduced such when Dem voters got more than 1/3 facts wrong v. Republican voters. We have an admitted 80-90 liberal bias in media (same as in Universities), inheriting the best of disinformation tactics from their communist supporters of the 30s and 40s. Love that liberal ignorant sound-bite that people actually believe. Talk about being dumbed-down and lazy; looking to first hand sources? Gee, that requires industry and accuracy — not the soundbite for the cause at any cost.

    And of course, Dem districts and pets like ACORN making dead people vote multiple times. Disenfranchised, Baronscopia, are those silent, law-abiding tax-payers and military (disenfranchised, or tried to be, by GORE in 2000, 2004, were in 2006 — why? because they primarily vote Republican); you think your pretty words are witty, but they’re not.

    Ignorant voting has lead to the downfall of many a nation — oh, and the rise of an impotent welfare state where, golly, the bulk becomes disenfranchised (read socialisms — it was well known in the 30s, according to Von Mises) that Nazis, Communists, and Fascists all went for the same people — you know, those similar to the modern Democrat voter of the US. Read history.

    Smarter men then you in, oppressive situations (of which no one today is a victim, although everyone climbs all over themselves to gain the title of “ultimate victim” thus entitled), crafted the Constitution — that’s the point, not “Founding Fathers”.

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