The Omaha World-Herald has this story about the bill in the Nebraska legislature to eliminate the ability of each U.S. House district in Nebraska to choose its own presidential elector. The bill to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system is likely to pass this year, according to the story. The bill is LB 21 and it will be heard in committee on February 23.
The same committee will also hear LB 367 on February 23. That is the bill promoted by the Commission on Uniform State Laws to require each party to submit two candidates for presidential elector for each slot, one elector and one alternate. Then, if the elector votes for someone his or her state party didn’t wish, the elector is deemed to have resigned, and the alternate becomes the elector instead.
Abolish the timebomb Electoral College.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and App.V.
TO HELL (if necessary) with the small States and their gerrymander power in the 3 EVIL minority rule gerrymanders in the U.S.A. regime — House, Senate and Electoral College.
While this is going on in Nebraska, Ted Costa is trying to get a statute in California the does a 180 degree turn, viz., “Electorial College Reform Act” to be voted on in February, 2012. This proposed statute is unconstitutional on many grounds, including trying to amend California Election Code section 6906, by stricking the “Habitation Clause” covered under the
12th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
A survey of 977 Nebraska voters conducted on January 26–27, 2011, showed 67% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a second question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 16% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all five of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide);
* 27% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 57% favored a national popular vote.
In a third question, 39% of voters think that changing the method by which Nebraska awards its electoral votes should be a high priority for the Nebraska Legislature in 2011, while 61% said that it should not.
The first question was: “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”
On the first question, support for a national popular vote, by political affiliation was 78% among Democrats, 62% among Republicans, and 63% among others. By congressional district, support for a national popular vote was 65% in the First congressional district, 66% in the Second district (which voted for Obama in 2008); and 72% in the Third District. By gender, support for a national popular vote was 76% among women and 59% among men. By age, support for a national popular vote, 73% among 18–29 year-olds, 67% among 30–45 year-olds, 65% among 46–65 year-olds, and 69% among those older than 65.
The third question was “Do you think that changing the method by which Nebraska awards its electoral votes should be a high priority for the Nebraska Legislature in 2011?”
On the third question, by political affiliation, the percentage of voters who thought that changing the method by which Nebraska awards its electoral votes should be a high priority for the Legislature in 2011 was 38% among Democrats, 42% among Republicans, and 30% among others. By congressional district, the percentage of voters who thought that changing the electoral method should be a high priority for the Legislature was 37% in the First congressional district, 42% in the Second district (which voted for Obama in 2008); and 38% in the Third District.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#NE_2011JAN
# 3 Any poll questions such as —
Are you aware that the Electoral College permits about 30 percent of all voters to indirectly elect a U.S.A. Prez/VP ???
NO uniform definition of Elector in the EVIL NPV SCHEME from Hell.
Lots of E-V-I-L folks trying to brainwash the People about such EVIL NPV SCHEME.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » Omaha Newspaper Story About Bill to Eliminate District Choice of Presidential Elector -- Topsy.com
#3 They are misleading questions with language intended to elicit a particular response.
Why are Nebraska’s electoral voters (sic) dispensed under the current system, while the candidate with the most votes would elected under another system.
Wouldn’t the more neutral question be:
“How should Nebraska’s presidential electors be chosen?
(1) The current system, where they are elected by the voters in each congressional district, plus two statewide;
(2) The system used in 48 other states, where they are elected by all voters in the state;
(3) Elected based on votes cast in other states.
We need more more politics not one party tyranny.
In 2008, both political parties spent a considerable amount of money and effort trying to win the 2nd district in Nebraska. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, visited the district during the post-convention general election campaign. Both parties paid attention to the 2nd district because it was a closely divided battleground district where one electoral vote was at stake. The outcome was that Barack Obama carried the 2nd district by 3,378 votes and won one electoral vote in Nebraska.
One Nebraska state senator whose district lies partially in the 2nd congressional district reported a heavy concentration of lawn signs, mailers, precinct walking, telephone calls to voters, and other campaign activity related to the presidential race in the portion of his state senate district that was inside the 2nd congressional district, but no such activity in the remainder of his state senate district. Indeed, the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska’s reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts, because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) two-thirds of the state were irrelevant.
Similarly, in Maine (which also awards electoral votes by congressional district), the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine’s 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored
# 7 Since when should ONLY the marginal gerrymander districts get all/most of the attention from the party hack candidates for Prez ???
How about ALL parts of the U.S.A. ???
Abolish the E.C.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Since when is a U.S.A. Prez a god-emperor-tyrant ??? Since 1932 — in the minds of MORONS who want to be robots ???
See the Stalin and Hitler regimes full of robots.
I think Nebraska has it right now, the way each congressional district votes is better that the winner take-all idea that ruins the idea taking too large of states by large cities but to get rid of the Electoral College would mean California NY and Penn would control every ECs help smaller states get some say it what happens in fact getting rid of the E.C is unconstitutional!
# 9 To HELL with ALL minority rule — direct and indirect.
See the EVIL past 6000 plus years of EVIL powermad monarchs / oligarchs — Pharoahs, Kings, Nobles, monarchs, tyrants, dictators, etc. etc.
Only MORONS have some fear of REAL Democracy — Majority Rule — regardless of the millions dead and enslaved due to ANTI-Democracy minority rule regimes in world history.
#10
If you hate the E.C then move the England! If you hate fairness then move to Egypt. If you hate freedom move to North Korea!
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
The political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. 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). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support , hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but 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.
12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia and Hawaii.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
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 uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
NationalPopularVote.com
# 11 All folks who love minority rule regimes can move to a tyrant regime in Asia — and fit right in.
#12-14 NO uniform definition of who is an Elector in the statutory quick fix NPV EVIL Scheme from Hell.
How many foreign folks, children, felons, insane folks, etc. will be voting for a U.S.A. Prez if the scheme somehow takes effect ???
NO approval of the interstate compact NPV scheme from Hell by the gerrymander Congress.
Blatant violation of 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 Equal Protection Clause INSIDE a State by the NPV scheme from Hell.
Democracy NOW in the U.S.A.
Const. Amdt
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and App.V.
— regardless of ALL of the minority rule math MORONS in the U.S.A.
What I am saying is that in California with 37,253,956 people (55 Electoral Votes) vs Wyoming population 563,626 (3 electoral votes) the balance is more equal with electoral votes than population. In fact California has more population than all state and whoever gan get California (strongly Liberal) voters they practically win the election. Thats why there is a Electoral College for more fairness.
A lot of the Western States were created by the party hack Elephants during and after the Civil War for the express purpose of having more gerrymander Elephant Senators and Elephant E.C. votes.
What is the sub-area FIXATION ???
Are public schools still in the Stone Age ???
All States are NOT equal.
ALL counties in each State are NOT equal.
ALL subdivisions in each county are NOT equal.
Etc.
P.R. and nonpartisan A.V.
Note – for Stone Age purposes — ALL nation-states are allegedly equal.
See Const. Art. III, Sec. 2 regarding foreign nation-state regimes.
#14 It is more than a little disingenuous to claim that the ending of the “the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote” had anything whatsoever specific to do with presidential elections.
Turnout in the 1788-89 elections for president in those states (6 of 10) where popular votes were used in the process of determining presidential electors was quite similar, indicating that the franchise for voting for presidential elector was identical to that for Congress, and that of course was required by the Constitution to be identical to that for the larger chamber of state legislatures (at least until Hugo Black’s misguided decision in Oregon v Mitchell and Thurgood Marshall’s disregarding that provision in his opinion in Tashjian).
As the franchise expanded for the legislature, it expanded for Congress, and for president as well. The 14th Amendment explicitly applies to election of presidential electors, and the intent was to eliminate the use of property and literacy tests as a surrogate for race. If a State excluded voters on the basis of property or illiteracy, then they would lose representatives in Congress, which would also reduce their electoral votes.
So contrary to your claims the elimination of property qualifications for voting is a direct consequence of constitutional amendment.
#17
Since you read the Constitution, you should read Article II section 1 (concerning Presidential elections) and you will find out that getting rid of the E.C is unconstitutional.
And concerning your question about Public Schools being in the Stone Age. I would have to respond with. Yes, PUBLIC schools are in the stone age and PRIVATE schools are leading America.
# 19 Slavery in the U.S.A. was gotten rid of the very HARD WAY via the 13th Amdt — about 620,000 DEAD Americans on both sides in 1861-1865 — due to the EVIL minority rule E.C. election in 1860.
Count the election related Const. Amdts starting with the 12th Amdt.
If things get really EVIL, then rational States will simply ignore the fatal defects in the 1787 U.S.A. Const the same way that the super defective 1777 Articles of Confederation died in 1787-1790.
Keep the sane parts. JUNK the EVIL INSANE ANTI-Democracy parts.
Remember the dead in all pro-Democracy revolutions.