On May 12, the National Popular Vote Plan advocacy organization held a press conference in Washington, D.C. The primary purpose was to announce that former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson is joining the group and will actively advocate for the Plan. Thompson was elected to the U.S. Senate from Tennessee in a special election in 1994, and re-elected to a full term in 1996. He also ran in the Republican presidential primaries in 2008, placing sixth. He is also somewhat well-known for his acting career.
National Popular Vote should not be supported, it is probably unconstitutional and undermines yet another check on power.
We are NOT a democracy, going to Nat Pop vote would be a step to a democracy. Prez elections decided in just a few of the largest cities and no need to campaign in small states. Elimination of state’s rights/power.
It seems to be supported by the same people pushing the Top 2 primary system that eliminates minor parties.
NW Libertarian: “probably unconstitutional”?!
I suspect you “probably” have not read any of the NPV’s well-researched book on the subject. Here is your homework for tonight: http://www.every-vote-equal.com/
Read and then provide a book report when you are done. Until then your credibility is nil.
P.S. The states have the power…you knucklhead. They are the ones deciding how to allocate their state’s electoral votes.
P.S.S. I am surprised that Thompson is on board with this. Kudos to the gentleman.
If I read a biased book, then I will agree with you? Nat Pop Vote requires a compact with the states, if it is done with out Federal approval, it would be unconstitutional.
It’s not the states, it’s a majority of people deciding how the state’s votes will be cast. The EC protects the state’s interests and increases the value of the minority to where candidates will need to win at least some of them and campaign there. The EC is a good design. We do not have a national election system or voting standards (how to count, what counts, registration, by mail or polling place etc) or an election mechanism to have a national count. Elections are by states, controlled by states and the power is dispersed at least that much instead of concentrated in DC. I understand that Nat Pop Vote starts with state systems, but a national system is the next step to driving this country into the ditch of democracy.
NPV scheme from Hell —
1. NO uniform definition of Elector in all of the U.S.A.
2. NO approval of it so far by the gerrymander Congress — sorry the NPV scheme ain’t something trivial — like Mother Nature’s plants or animals crossing State lines.
3. Blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause — Votes INSIDE a State having an effect due to Votes OUTSIDE of a State.
SCOTUS awaits if and when the NPV scheme tries to take effect.
Remedy – Const Amdt
Abolish the ANTI-Democracy timebomb Electoral College.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and App.V
Note – the U.S.A. regime is currently an EVIL and VICIOUS gerrymander monarchy (Prez/VP) / oligarchy (both houses of the gerrymander Congress) — along with the appointed SCOTUS party hack robots.
Result – current national bankruptcy, undeclared wars, almost dead States, etc. etc.
Democracy NOW — before it is too late.
#3, it is not a normal book. It sets out over 100 objections to the National Popular Vote Plan, and then it explains why each one in turn is not a valid objection. I have never seen a book that does such a good job of collecting ALL the opinions (some thoughtful, some not at all thoughtful) against an idea, and calmly and methodically setting out data and reason to counter each objection. At least look at the book before you judge it.
Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.
The U.S. Constitution provides:
“No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state….”
Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has method, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can “not be read literally.” In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
“Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.
“The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.”
Specifically, the Court’s 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
“Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”
The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
“The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”
The National Popular Vote compact would not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is simply no federal power—much less federal supremacy—in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.
State election laws are not identical now nor is there anything in the National Popular Vote compact that would force them to become identical. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution permits states to conduct elections in varied ways.
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.” They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates 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/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html
The process is explained at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. 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. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since 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.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign,, when 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 (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
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 powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.
Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. A “big city” only campaign would not win.
Very happy to hear that Fred Thompson has enlisted in the NPV movement.
Also the NPV scheme from Hell blatantly violates 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — abridge — look up in a legal dictionary.
What is to stop a usual suspect State from having the following folks from voting for a Prez/VP if the NPV scheme from Hell takes effect —
children
felons in jail
mentally ill folks
foreign folks ???
i.e. STUFF the BALLOT BOX — to get a usual suspect Prez/VP permanently — who will claim a mandate from Hell to be a god-monarch-emperor-dictator.
Still waiting for an answer from many earlier postings.
Folks with some brain cells will note what happened with the likes of Hitler and Stalin in the 1930s and the resulting WW II — with civilization barely hanging on.
“We are NOT a democracy, going to Nat Pop vote would be a step to a democracy.”
You are correct that we are not a direct democracy. I fail to see how electing a president by popular vote moves us any closer to direct democracy though. If we were a direct democracy we wouldn’t have a president at all.
#8 To ascertain means to make a final and certain determination. The certificates of ascertainment documents the final and certain basis by which each State determines which presidential electors are appointed in that State.
In States that use the statewide popular vote to determine which electors are appointed, the certificate of ascertainment contains the number of popular votes cast in that State. In States that use the districtwide popular vote, their certificate of ascertainment contains the popular vote for each district. If a State legislature were to appoint the electors, the certificate of ascertainment would contain the roll call vote of the legislators.
If Iowa were to use the popular vote from Arkansas, and Arkansas the popular vote from Iowa, they would each include the popular vote from the other State on their respective certificates of ascertainment.
If a State were to appoint its presidential electors on the basis of the national popular vote, then its certificate of ascertainment would include the national popular vote (or whatever the Secretary of State surmised it to be).
In 2008, mean States did not complete their certificate of ascertainment until the day the presidential electors met. At least one did not complete their certificate until after the meeting date. And there would have been a delay in the sending the certificates to Washington D.C.
So how would a Secretary of State in a State that appointed its electors on the basis of the “national popular vote” ascertain what the national popular vote was?
Would they Google the various election web sites?
2, 5, 6-10, and 14 (above) are right on the mark. The “we are not a democracy” argument gets really tiresome and boring. Of course we are not a direct democracy. No contemporary nation-state is. The American polity HAS evolved toward a more representative democracy (or a more democratic republic); notably, the direct election of U.S. Senators, partial democratization in selecting the presidential electors, and the expansion of the suffrage to include African Americans, women, and 18-20 year olds. NPV would be another step in that direction. So would the elimination of crippling ballot-access restrictions and other duopolistic measures that severely limit the voter’s freedom to choose. NPV is a good thing.
1 –
Haven’t read the constitution, have you? Try it and you might be surprised how wrong you are.
As for going toward a direct democracy, I doubt that more than 2 million voters, tops, can fit into the Capital building at one time, so I wouldn’t fret if I were you.
3 –
Still guessing, eh? The Constitution requires only that the Congress approves an interstate compact, as it has done several times in the past. That’s the only “federal approval” required. Also, prior US Supreme Court rulings have indicated that the Congress would have the authority to nullify an interstate compact only if the compact had the effect of countermanding what is clearly delineated in the Constitution as federal authority. This is not the case here…clearly.
10 – good point, but I’d make it another way. How many small states get the attention of either candidate if the state is not “in play.” And even if a state is “in play” how much attention do the rural areas of those states get in the general presidential election campaign? And how much of that “attention” is delivered by anything other than electronic media anyway? If opponents of NPV were so concerned about rural America getting closed out of the election, they would be hounding Congress to fund efforts to deliver high speed internet services to rural America, and to maintain net neutrality.
15 – Why Jim – they would all just guess, of course, just before the sky falls in!
There is a reason that we are not a democracy and why the founding fathers worked hard to make sure we did not become one. As noted, a big step was the mistake of direct election of Senators about 100 years ago.
Nat pot vote might not hinge on 5 cities, but it could on 5 states -CA, NY, FL, IL, TX. But in a close election, 5 cities probably would make the diff.
We have 3 branches of gov, 1 has been compromised now (Senators) and NPV would compromise another. Can’t you see that no government can work as a democracy? Just look as Europe and our current problems result from the majority voting to take property/rights from the minority and give it to other groups to increase their political power. We need protection from that.
Great point that has slipped my too busy mind to read all that is here or books at the moment Jim Riely! How do we know what the Nat Pop Vote is? Why there is a problem accepting the EC I don’t understand. I think there is confusion in the belief that the Nation consists of only people, but that leaves out the States who were critical and a partner that serves as a check against fed power. Congress was to represent both parties, the people elect the House and the States elect the Senate, now the people have 2 reps & the states none.
NPV is no more than a continuation in the effort to fundamentally change our country by those who do not want the experiment of individual liberty succeed. They may prefer a socialist European society. Maybe a reading of Atlas Shrugged would be in order for those who advocate NPV or a democratic form of government here. What are you guys going to do if those who create go on strike?
#5 It is a scheme concocted by lawyers, and they have become so enamored of the idea of bypassing the amendment process, and whether it is legal, that they have failed to step back and consider whether it is good public policy, much less whether the specific terms of the compact are wise.
#18, would you favor letting state legislatures choose the presidential electors in all states? The last state to do that was Colorado in 1876.
If the NPV scheme had been in effect in 1960, Richard Nixon would have been elected President.
#5 The pamphlet does not address the 1880 election.
Why is that?
#21, John Kennedy received more popular votes in the U.S. than Richard Nixon. A few individuals have suggested subtracting 6/11ths of Kennedy’s popular vote in Alabama (and if that were done, then Nixon did get more popular votes nationwide), because there was not a full slate of presidential elector candidates on the ballot pledged to Kennedy. But it doesn’t follow logically that just because a presidential candidate doesn’t have a full set of candidates for presidential elector in any state, that his or her popular vote in that state should be shrunk. No one ever proposed subtracting two-twelfths of Harry Truman’s popular vote in Tennessee from his national total, but he only had 10 candidates for presidential elector in Tennessee who said they would vote for him. Also all minor party presidential candidates in Minnesota in most of the 20th century only ran one candidate for presidential elector, but no one ever proposes shrinking their popular vote in Minnesota to only one-twelfth or so of the true state total. Voters who vote for a presidential candidate are voting for him or her no matter how many elector candidates there were for that candidate in that state.
18 –
Some of the FF’s at the constitutional convention thought that the executive ought to be appointed by the Congress. Some thought there ought to have been an executive council rather than a single executive. Some thought the executive should not have been given the “negative” (veto). Some thought the executive ought to have a single term, some thought the term ought to have been seven years.
So…do you think we should have an executive council instead of a single president, and that it ought to be appointed for a single seven year term and should not have the power of the veto?
Of course not.
My point is that when people assert that they have “the truth” about what the “Founding Fathers wanted,” they only show that they really haven’t read what the individual Founding Fathers actually said in Philadelphia. There was no unanimity of opinion in that body on just about any issue. So all we really have to go on are the words which they actually wrote into the Constitution, and which were ratified by the states.
And on this matter, the constitutionality of the NPV – and yes Jim, the LEGALITY of the NPV, is indisputable based on a strict, literal reading of the words which created the Electoral College in the first place.
So…if you and Jim don’t like the fact that the Constitution allows state legislatures to allocate their electors by using the national popular vote as the determinant, then I suggest it is YOU who need to get to work amending the Constitution.
22 –
Maybe they didn’t care to dredge up the many incidents of post-election bribery, threats, assault, ballot tampering and other crimes which were committed to swing the electoral votes of four states into the Republican column.
But really Jim…don’t you think the crap that was pulled in Ohio in 2004 to willfully disenfranchise tens of thousands of likely Democratic voters is ample evidence to indict the corrupt effects of the Electoral College mistake?
The “Libertarian above” is all worked up about moving toward a democracy. Even the people in the Roman Senate didn’t have nearly the power as the handful of people in Ohio who gamed the screwball Electoral College scheme to make sure a presidential election turned out to their liking.
And yours, I’m sure.
#7 The Constitution permits diversity of election laws because elections are indeed independent in each State. It does not permit diversity of election laws within a State because that would violate equal protection.
You (Susan Mvymvy)seem to be saying that equal protection is merely a legal nicety, and that there is no fundamental principle involved.
Europe is not a direct democracy either.
It’s amazing how the Progressive D’s are all concerned about Ohio, or ignore the dead who voted in Illinois or how LBJ “delivered” Texas for JFK.
In ’04 Ohio went 150K for Bush, to move that many votes take a lot of effort. Why the progressives continue to complain about it while ignoring 1) New Mexico with Same Day Reg, 6K vote diff & evidence of illegal votes 2) Wisconsin with 11K vote diff, Same day Reg, wide spread voter fraud, more votes than residents in some Madison precincts. Washington state had the Gov election stolen by the D with King co. finding tens of thousands of votes AFTER certification & adding them to the tabulation. Now it wasn’t enough to change to Bush and I don’t dispute Kerry winning the state in that election.
In 2000 we have Wisconsin again, Iowa -Same Day voting & evidence of fraud. Missouri -remember on election night there was all the noise about the St. Louis polling places staying open longer then they were supposed to -I believe they were trying to like up Missouri just in-case, but it wasn’t close enough. St Louis was over 77% for Gore, but that is so far out of whack with the rest of the state that there should be questions and a study to see what kind of fraud was going on there.
24
If the founding Fathers didn’t intend the system they finally put into place, then what system did they want? There were lots of ideas that were run by, but ultimately it wasn’t just one idea that was used, but a number of different ones that were agreed to that came together. There is some redundancy, but the pieces work together to make this a system that can survive a long time, prosper, and protect individual liberty.
Under a democracy (I’m not saying “direct democracy”) individual liberty suffers and ultimately is destroyed, prosperity & creativity are destroyed and the result is a short unstable government. If we want to have thriving individual liberty & prosperity that our heirs can enjoy, then we must act swiftly to get us back to the principles of the original experiment. If liberty fails in the US, then the world is doomed.
Most people wrongly believe the presidential election system we have today is in the Constitution, and think that any change would need an amendment. But state-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution — “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.”
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
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, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
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 entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It 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. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
#23 Please see (and read)
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php
The NPV scheme defines:
“elector slate” shall mean a slate of candidates who have been nominated in a state for the position of presidential elector in association with a presidential slate;
Were the Democratic slate of electors in Alabama nominated in association with the presidential slate of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson?
No. They were not. Therefore no election official in any member of the compact would have counted the 318,303 votes cast for the Alabama Democratic electors not nominated in association with any presidential slate.
The presidential slate of Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge received the most national popular votes in 1960.
Five of the Alabama 1960 Democratic electors were associated with Kennedy. The National Popular Vote Compact doesn’t say “complete” when it says “slate.” In any event, back in 1960, Alabama didn’t print the names of any presidential candidates on the ballot, but the laws of all states nowadays do print presidential candidates’ names on November ballots.
#29 Susan Mvymvy is using a deceptive argument here.
She in essence is claiming that because some (even “most”) people believe that a constitutional amendment is “necessary” to implement a popular vote scheme for the presidency, and because it might be possible to legally bypass the constitution, it is therefore a good idea to do so.
It is interesting that Susan Mvymvy often trumpets polls showing “most” Americans want to have a popular vote for the presidency — and now claims that “most” Americans think that to do so would require a constitutional amendment.
How are we to resolve this paradox? Most people are ignorant of the electoral process and think it would unconstitutional to change, but nonetheless think it should be changed?
Or maybe most people believe that the constitutional amendment process would be better for modifying the presidential election scheme (see 12th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th,and 26th amendments).
#32 They were not “nominated in association” with the Kennedy-Johnson slate.
The NPV scheme says it is irrelevant whether or not the presidential and vice presidential candidates’ names appear on the ballot. The substantive test is whether the elector candidates were nominated in association with the presidential slate.
So back in 1960 would it have just been up to each Secretary of State to decide how to count the popular votes from Alabama? So instead of saying that Richard Nixon would have been elected had the NPV scheme been in effect, it would be more accurate to say, “due to ambiguities, it is anybody’s guess who would have been elected in 1960 had the NPV scheme been in effect”?
Are you saying that a party in California could nominate 55 presidential electors, each in association with a different presidential slate, and if the NPV scheme were implemented, other States would be required to count the popular votes as being cast for all 55 presidential elector states.
Who were the 1912 Republican presidential elector candidates in California and South Dakota nominated in association with?
In 1836, would Van Buren-Johnson and Van Buren-Smith been counted as separate presidential slates?
“presidential slate” shall mean a slate of two persons, the first of whom has been nominated as a candidate for President of the United States and the second of whom has been nominated as a candidate for Vice President of the United States, or any legal successors to such persons, regardless of whether both names appear on the ballot presented to the voter in a particular state;
You aren’t going to argue that Richard Johnson and William Smith were the same persons or that one was the legal successor to the other? What does “legal successor” mean in this context?
California, and perhaps other States, allows uncommitted slates of presidential electors. Would California even bother counting these votes, or is there Uncommitted Presidential Elector Slate Counting Ban in California? What if Michael Chamness wanted to vote for an uncommitted presidential elector slate? Maybe they would decide to vote for the Coffee Party nominee when they met.
#25 Which four States would that be, Baron? You’re probably confusing 1876 with 1880.
Susan Mvymvy thinks it would be keen to have different ballot qualifications in each State so that the Democrat lawyers of the ilk of Elizabeth Holtzman and Toby Moffett can go from State to State knocking candidates off the ballot.
#9
“The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters.”
Implicit in this claim by Susan Mvymvy is that during the primaries, candidates do reach out to all of the States and their voters.
So the much simpler solution is to eliminate the uniform November election date for choosing the presidential electors in each State. States could simply combine the presidential primary and presidential election and save money. With a longer campaign, candidates would have an opportunity to meet with more voters in person.
Then what do you mean by democracy if not direct democracy? What’s the line that separates republic from democracy?
The UK, for example, has a head of state who isn’t elected by anyone and a head of government elected by Parliament. They’re even less of a democracy than we are.
#36
“Implicit in this claim by Susan Mvymvy is that during the primaries, candidates do reach out to all of the States and their voters.”
Nope. Mvmvy is talking about the general election specifically, because the NPVIC would have no direct effect on the primaries.
#37
“The UK, for example, has a head of state who isn’t elected by anyone and a head of government elected by Parliament. They’re even less of a democracy than we are.”
The UK has a parliamentary system of government. We have a presidential system. They are different.
Still waiting for an answer to the question in #13.
Democracy = majority rule – direct or indirect
monarchy/oligarchy = minority rule – direct or indirect
ALL monarchies are oligarchies – since the monarch always needs some stooge robots to do his/her evil bidding — i.e. even Stalin and Hitler were oligarch regimes.
See the ancient Greeks circa 500 B.C. — nothing new – except
P.R. and App.V.
Yes, they’re different. Theirs is less democratic than ours.
#36 Please Read Note #9.
Susan Mvymvy’s introductory sentence is:
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters.
My analysis is that she was implying that candidates do reach out to all States and their voters during the primary.
Why would she mention primaries if that was not a necessary qualification to her assertion that presidential candidates do not reach out to all voters?
Candidates simply don’t have time to campaign in every State in a one or two month period. Going to a national popular vote will not change that. It might change where they go, and but not the number of campaign stops and speeches.
But extending the election over several months will provide the opportunity for candidates to campaign in many States. All that is needed is a simple change in the law by Congress.
3 U.S.C. § 1
The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, during the period beginning on the first day of March and ending on the thirtieth day of November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.
The legislature of each State shall provide for the date of appointment prior to the 1st day of January in the year that the election is held. Should a legislature fail to make provision for a date of appointment, the electors shall be appointed on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.
Art. II, Sec. 1 parts –
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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
*** [See the 12th Amdt]
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
See 14th Amdt, Secs. 1 and 2.
*the Time* = ONE day ???
what happened to *chusing* in American English ???
Also —
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
stated Times — Period
his = her ???
he = she ???
How many pay raises for a Prez after the original amount in 1789 ???
#43 The “time” for choosing the electors need not be a day, and it need not be uniform. Note that the FF specifically differentiated between “time” and “day” for casting the votes.
Until 1845, it was a period of time before the date set for the electors meeting in their respective dates.
The start of the presidential term was March 4. To ensure that there was time for the lame duck Congress to elect a President in case no candidate had a majority of the electoral votes, the date for counting of the electoral vote was in early January. To give time for the electoral votes to be sent to the capital, the meeting date for the electors in their respective States was in early December.
States were given about 5 weeks to choose their electors before the meeting date when they would cast their votes. In States where the electors were chosen by popular vote, there had to be time to tabulate the votes centrally, for the electors to be notified, and for them to travel to the meeting place where they would cast their electoral votes. Since travel would be done by horseback or horse-drawn stage or carriage, popular elections were held in late October and early November.
There was a concern about voters crossing state lines and voting more than once, so in 1845 Congress set a single date for the “time”. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November was within a week or so of when the presidential election was held in the various States.
Congress also let States choose their electors at a later date, in case a majority of the popular vote was needed.
Since this exception had been added, there was some consideration given to letting States where electors were chosen by the legislature, to choose their electors at any time, since there would be no problem with voters crossing state lines. South Carolina was the only State legislature still choosing electors at that time (1845). They would choose the electors at the start of their regular term in late November. They would have to meet in special session to choose electors on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Ultimately, Congress decided to not make an exception for South Carolina. There may have been some sentiment that setting an early date might force South Carolina to switch to popular election of electors.