On February 17, the West Virginia Judiciary Committee passed HB 2378, the National Popular Vote Plan bill. Although the vote was by voice, it appeared that approximately 20 “aye” votes were cast, and only about two or three “nay” votes. See this story.
There are twenty-five (25) members on our House Judiciary Committee of which 16 are Democrat and 9 are Republican. Twenty “aye” votes would mean that 4 Republicans crossed over to the dark side. The “voice” vote effectively concealed their misguided actions.
Also, the Correct bill number is HB 3107. HB 2378 has to do with electrical licenses for work performed on government property.
Richard, please scratch post #2 above. HB 2378 WAS electrical work last year, but this year it IS INDEED the national popular vote bill. However, for some reason THERE IS a DUPLICATE national popular vote bill that is HB 3107 this year introduced by three different delegates. It was just introduced last Friday so was a month later than the now moving 2378 bill which was introduced in early January. Sorry for the confusion.
NO uniform definition of Elector-Voter in the NPV scheme from Hell.
What is to stop a usual suspect State from having children, felons, mentally ill and even FOREIGN folks being electors-voters for a U.S.A. Prez/VP in the NPV scheme from Hell ???
With any luck if they ever reach their goal of having enough states under NPV to put it into effect it will be ruled unconstitutional. They would be essentially depriving voters in their states from being counted at the state level. Also, they are in effect trying to amend the constitution without getting the amount of support an actual amendment requires.
Ruled unconstitutional, eh? By, like, the Supreme Court? Uh, …”Danger, Will Robinson!”
#5, what provision of the U.S. Constitution says the National Popular Vote Plan would be held unconstitutional? I don’t agree with your comment, because Article II says “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The legislature could appoint the electors itself without violating the U.S. Constitution. That is one reason why the existing system is so dangerous. In 2001 the voters of Texas amended the Texas Constitution to say the legislature can choose the electors if the popular vote is so close that no one can tell who won the popular vote. The Constitution would permit the voters to be shut out entirely. It is in big need of an amendment, and the move for NPV would make it much easier to get a constitutional amendment.
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 30 ballots for choosing a method): “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The winner-take-all method is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district — a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/certificates_of_ascertainment.html
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html
Under the National Popular Vote, voters will know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted for and mattered to their candidate.
Richard, “The Constitution would permit the voters to be shut out entirely.” NO, NOT ENTIRELY, but certainly indirectly. The people are directly represented (Democracy) at the federal level by their Representatives. The Founders’ design was to have their President and U.S. Senator chosen INDIRECTLY (Republic) relative to their direct votes for their state legislators. Our Founders designed a Republic for us, not a Democracy. I strongly suggest that you read James Madison’s Federalist X, particularly the part that reads: “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” (SOURCE: http://www.proconstitution.com/republic/madison_federalist_10.php )
The 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 applies if there is ANY voting by the Electors-Voters inside a sovereign State of the Union.
See 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 —
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of [[[electors for President and Vice-President of the United States,]]] Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
*right to vote*, denied, abridged — SOOOOO difficult.
Armies of SUPER-MORON lawyers and party hacks in the courts have ignored 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 since 1868 — which was deemed super-important compared to Sec. 1.
The 39th Congress while mourning the many dead in 1861-1865 (circa 620,000 on both sides) was well aware that the horrific Civil War had happened due to the LACK of Democracy in the rotted evil slave States in the South — thus the 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 language was to apply to ALL States, north, south, east and west (with its anti-Asian election laws).
It took about 6 months and many, many, many re-writes to get the final language in Sec. 2 — i.e. each word was gone over at least 50 times.
Think UNION – think the public safety.
BUT the new Elephants in power did NOT abolish the timebomb Electoral College — setting the stage for it to go off again.
See the close calls in 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2008. CRISIS in 2012 ???
Only *real* 2 forms of government —
1. Democracy — Majority Rule
2. monarchy/oligarchy — ANTI-Democracy minority rule — Kaiser Bill, Hitler, Stalin, etc. with their stooge robot gangs.
Which form has killed/injured/ oppressed the most folks in 6,000 plus years ???
What just happened in Egypt ??? — regardless of its 6,000 plus years of rotted history
#8 in 1788/9 the people in 6 of 10 states that appointed electors, including the 3 largest, had a vote. 6 is most of 10. The number of votes cast was similar to that cast in the congressional elections, which by the Constitution is the same as for the larger chamber of the state legislature. I suspect that the delegates to the ratifying conventions were chosen on the same franchise. The electors in most States were voted for by the People as was then understood.
If you are going to cut and paste, please at least use correct information.
Since I can see the certificates of ascertainment, than you must be also able to see them.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html
What do the 2008 Certificates of Ascertainment for California, Maryland, Nebraska, and Oklahoma have in common?
What is special about West Virginia’s?
#7 14th Amendment right to vote in elections for the choice of presidential electors.
#13, the 14th amendment existed in 1876, the year the Colorado legislature chose Colorado’s presidential electors.
# 8 Founding Fathers fixation —
See the election related amendments starting with the 12th Amdt.
The FF made their EVIL compromises — slave = 3/5 person, min 1 Rep per gerrymander State, 2 Senators per gerrymander State, Electoral College — ALL standard EVIL compromise stuff in the 1700s — by the elite party hacks in their top secret closed doors meetings.
NOW — super dangerous and INTOLERABLE.
See the 1860 timebomb election that BLEW UP the U.S.A. (due to all 3 main gerrymander systems) — count the 620,000 DEAD Americans on both sides in 1861-1865.
ALL 3 gerrymander systems continue to grind the U.S.A. economy to bits.
REAL Democracy NOW — END all of the ANTI-Democracy monarchy/oligarchy stuff — before it is too late.
#14 There was no election in 1876 in Colorado for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President.
But what would happen if there was an election in Hawaii, and voters (particularly male citizens over the age of 21 who are not felons) had no opportunity to vote for Ralph Nader, yet Hawaii as a matter of law counted votes cast for Ralph Nader cast in other States?
What if last November, Jerry Brown was not on the ballot in Alameda County, and Meg Whitman was not on the ballot in Contra Costa County, would voters in those counties have been denied the right to vote?
*right to vote* , *election*, *choice* in 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — # 10 above.
Wake up SCOTUS NOW ??? — to have them inform us of the meaning of such words — since SCOTUS can mystify every word in the Const. — regardless of history and English dictionaries.
#14 The California Constitution guarantees the right of a party that participates in a presidential primary the right to participate in the general election.
In February 2008, there were 6 parties with presidential primaries: American Independent, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Peace&Freedom, and Republican. Each party participated in the general election with their nominees of Alan Keyes, Barack Obama, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, and John McCain, respectively. Voters in California could vote for the candidate of any of the participating parties, and the candidate who received the most votes (Barack Obama) had his 55 presidential electors appointed.
But now there is this NPV scheme in which voters in other states would be permitted to be counted in determining how California appoints its presidential electors. Some of the other States did not permit some of those 6 candidates to be on their ballot. Some did not even allow write-in votes.
So it would be like you went to a party, but were not permitted to dance. Can it really be said that you were permitted to participate? Of course not. If California were to join the NPV scheme in its present form, it would violate the California Constitution.
#18 This is EVIL New Age of statutory quick fix SCHEMES for things requiring const. amdts.
— i.e. New Age political snake oil EVIL deceivers.
#9 What does the Federalist have to say about EVIL monarchy/oligarchy MINORITY RULE regimes ???
Gee – what was that Brit regime in 1761-1783 that the Americans had to deal with — i.e. the HARD WAY in 1775-1783 ???
What were those Central Powers regimes in World War I ???
What were those Axis Powers regimes in World War II ???
REAL Democracy NOW — regardless of ALL of the political history juveniles on this list.