South Carolina Senator Phil Leventis (D-Sumter) has introduced SB 546, to let each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector.
In the meantime, on February 23, a Nebraska legislative committee heard hours of testimony on LB 21, the bill to eliminate Nebraska’s provision for letting each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector. The committee won’t vote on the bill for a week. See this newspaper story about the hearing, which also describes the testimony in favor of LB 583, the National Popular Vote Plan bill.
Even worse PACK and CRACK gerrymander districts — to TOTALLY pre-rig U.S.A. Prez and U.S.A. Rep. elections ??? Duh.
P.R. and App.V. — to END the EVIL minority rule politics in the U.S.A.
The SC Senate just sent H 3003, the Voter ID bill to Governor Haley, who will surely sign it.
It looks like a party line vote 26-15.
Brief discussion here: http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/02/24/sc-legislative-schedule-2242011/
A survey of 800 South Carolina voters conducted on January 17–19, 2011 showed 71% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked “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?”
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 64% among Republicans, 81% among Democrats, and 68% among others. By gender, support was 81% among women and 59% among men. By age, support was 81% among 18-29 year olds, 71% among 30-45 year olds, 72% among 46-65 year olds, and 63% for those older than 65.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#SC_2011JAN
The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. A smaller fraction of the country’s population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 30%) that now get overwhelming attention , while two-thirds of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
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 second question was: “Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like in Nebraska where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of Nebraska’s electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?”
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#NE_2011JAN
For any math MORONS on this list —
HALF the votes in HALF the gerrymander areas (STATES or DISTRICTS) = about 25 percent ANTI-Democracy indirect minority rule = OLIGARCHY — always tending towards absolute MONARCHY — see the various powermad Prezs since 1929.
— now with computerized gerrymander programs to have INSTANT New Age gerrymanders and OLIGARCHIES in all States 24/7.
How STUPID are media math MORONS ???
—
P.R. and App.V. — with NO vetoes.
Another way of allowing the people to elect the president of their choice, is to allow the members of the party – and not the party bosses – to nominate the presidential electors.
Richard may know of other states which used to or still do this, but I am more familiar with Alabama. While it may have occurred in earlier presidential elections, in 1960 the Alabama Democrats nominated 11 electors – 6 electors pledged to John F. Kennedy and 5 unpledged – all of which were elected in November. The 5 unpledged later voted for Harry Byrd, Sr. of Virginia in the Electoral College.
In 1964, the Democatic voters nominated an “unpledged” slate and Lyndon Johnson had no electors on Alabama’s ballot in November pledged to him. Senator Bary Goldwater, the GOP nominee, won the state anyway.
Finally, in 1968, the Democratic voters chose electors pledged to Governor George C. Wallace running nationwide as a 3rd party candidate. The regular Democratic nominee – Hubert H. Humphrey – got on the ballot as a 3rd party nominee. Wallace carried the state and the Democratic electors voted for him in the Electoral College.
A similar scenario occurred in Mississippi in 1960, but there were two slates of Democratic electors. One unpledged and one pledged to John F. Kennedy – though the unpledged slate won.
Perhaps this would be a fairer way to allow the people to choose whom they really want for President? After all, shouldn’t the people choose and not the party bosses?