The League of Women Voters finished studying the National Popular Vote Plan at the end of April, 2009, but was unable to come to a consensus on whether to support it.
The League of Women Voters finished studying the National Popular Vote Plan at the end of April, 2009, but was unable to come to a consensus on whether to support it.
I just wish they would come to a consensus that all ballot qualified candidates should be invited to all LWV debates.
The League of Women Voters US board determined there was no consensus even though the “raw votes” of participating League members was overwhelmingly supportive of the National Popular Vote plan.
Grassroots League members and many state Leagues are simply terrific — dedicated, serious and deeply involved in their communities. That’s where the strength of the League lies and I’d strongly encourage democracy advocates to look for opportunities to work with them.
#2 –
But how did the support break down by state of residence? After all, even if the membership broke 65-35% in total, the tally by Electoral College votes might have been 270-270, i.e., no consensus.
THAT’s the important thing, right? How did the STATES vote? C’mon, now…let’s respect states’ rights.
The League of Women Voters should be promoting openness like with the debates and improved ballot access for 3rd parties and independents. They shouldn’t be, and nobody should be for that matter, promoting a system that is guaranteed to leave the minority out in the cold and further solidify the two-party system.
4 –
I disagree, at least as to the effect of NPV on the viability of “minority” candidacies. When the “bar” to win a national election is lowered from roughly 45-48% of the popular vote to potentially 35-39% or thereabouts, “minority” candidacies can only benefit. Under the inane, archaic EC system, no one regards third party candidacies as truly viable and therefore those candidacies attract less of what is regrettably needed to win modern day elections – cash. However, remove the artificial barrier of achieving majorities (or very near them) within a state or states in order to win ANY votes in the EC, and suddenly a third party candidate who is polling 15-20% in June looks a whole lot more viable.
Another benefit to eliminating the EC system is that it makes election fraud less practicable. With modern polling techniques it is possible to isolate with almost deadly precision the two or three states which will determine the election. Put into those states a governor, a legislature, and perhaps a Sec. of State, all from the same party, and you get Ohio in 2004. (And before Republicans jump on this poor fellow Republican, it could just as easily have been Democrats pulling the crap that went on in Ohio.)
But back to the original premise. If you can explain how the NPV would further marginalize third and independent parties, please explain. I don’t see it.
Cheers.
#5: The current “bar”, as you put it, is actually about 12% of the popular vote. Yeah, that does sound pretty bad that a candidate can win the presidency with 12% of the popular vote [in theory]. However, it’s not like there’s some kind of rule that only a Republican or a Democrat can take advantage of that fact. If we went to NPV or National Majority Vote then that puts the “bar” at ~33% and ~50% respectively. The fact that a 3rd candidate hasn’t cracked 10% since Perot in 1992 (who was rich and allowed in the debates) tells me this plan is curtains for the 3rd parties.