For more than a week, Pennsylvania Senator Dominic Pileggi (R-Chester) has been getting publicity for his plan to introduce a bill, providing that Pennsylvania would elect one presidential elector from each U.S. House district. However, his staff refuses to release the text of the proposed bill, even though it must have been written, because Senator Pileggi has been circulating a copy of it to other state legislators, asking them to co-sponsor it.
The details could be injurious to minor party and independent presidential candidates. It is not clear if the bill will require a candidate for presidential elector to live in any particular district. In Pennsylvania, petitioning presidential candidates must find their candidates for presidential elector before beginning to circulate the petition, and then must print the names of the presidential elector candidates on the petition. The paperwork burden will be increased if the list must include a candidate for presidential elector who resides in each district.
USA Parliament: Day to Day Updates:
http://usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=466&p=1000#p1000
National Peace Minister Herb [aqua tangerine] elected, MMP Angela Watson [Green Tea] self appointed.
MMP=member of mini-state parliament
Glad to see the Keystone State taking the lead on this. The residency issue is interesting since technically members of Congress are not required to live in their own district. Both congresscritters AND presidential electors SHOULD reside in their districts – only exception being U.S. Senators and the two at-large presidential electors. Our Founders’ intent was that these would be persons well known to the public. The next step is to eliminate straight-ticket voting and vote directly for the Presidential Electors instead of the media-hyped presidential candidates and their unnamed slates. This mandates an INFORMED electorate which would be good!
This proposal is a distraction from dealing with a more critical problem, the use of legislative staff and resources for political campaigns. Recently the former Speaker of the Pennsylvania State House of Representatives plead guilty to 8 of 82 counts of fraud. He had been misusing legislative funding, staff and resources to advance his favorite candidates.
This problem was uncovered in a Grand Jury investigation known has “Bonusgate.” Senator Pileggi should be working on addressing the problems identified by the Grand Jury, and developing ways to prevent legislators from going done the path of former Representative Perzel.
Senator Pileggi’s electoral college proposal is a waste of time. He is using it as a distraction so that he can avoid addressing the problems identified by the Bonusgate Grand Jury. The problem in Pennsylvania that he needs to focus on fixing inappropriate use of legislative staff and resources for political campaign related activities. The Grand Jury found a problem of enormous proportions and people are starting to go to jail because of it. He needs to address Grand Jury recommendations.
The public trust of the legislators in Pennsylvania is in question and he is pandering around about the electoral college? Electoral College reform is not a state legislature issue, and we need to move to strict popular vote in the Presidential elections.
ALL minority rule gerrymanders — 1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander areas = about 1/4 CONTROL — reality about 30 percent.
All makers of gerrymanders are ANTI-Democracy W-A-R criminals — i.e. ENEMIES of Democracy — NO different than Stalin and Hitler types.
Abolish the timebomb U.S.A. Electoral College.
Abolish the 6-6-6 U.S.A. Senate.
Nonstop gerrymanders in the U.S.A. since long before 4 July 1776 — the cause of endless EVIL — political – social – economic.
P.R. and App.V. in all regimes — pending advanced head to head Condorcet math.
2 –
I think you’re on to something, but you present only a partial solution. We need to add another layer to the process you propose. We elect the electors, and they then elect electoral “shop stewards” who then elect…uh, what office are we electing someone for again?
I like the idea of voting for electors rather than presidential candidates. In fact, electors should be unpledged rather than part of a slate that is pre-determined to pick a candidate. It should be a true electoral college, coming up with the best choice they can.
The bill could let each congressional district choose an elector, and let the 18 electors who are elected choose the final two electors.
Problem is solved since the minor party and independent candidates could concentrate on those areas of the State where they have the most support.
Proportional representation within each state would be better.
Not all alternative parties or independents are stronger in one part of a state than another.
Elections by district or NPV do not put electors for alternative parties or independents in the electoral college.
Proportional representation does.
It gives us a seat at the table.
That is the system we should get behind.
5 –
Jimbo is stealing your idea, Bernie.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own,, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who
“Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence.
Some states would actually increase their influence.
“If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state. ”
However, if a non-battleground state were to change to proportional representation, they would pay more attention to it because right now in practical terms ZERO electoral votes are at stake.
“The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.”
Good! That is exactly the kind of influence that we, as supporters of alternatives to the duopoly, should push for.
“If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide.”
So what? The system is meant to leave some influence to states and Congress, not just to citizens of a transfederal superstate
picking an elected dictator.
“ectoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote,”
Incorrect. Nader would have won two electoral votes in California and one in New York.
Maybe other states? Texas? Florida?
Even if it was only three electoral votes, that would certainly be better than zero.
And that would give him (or a different candidate in another election) more “juice” or leverage.
Which is exactly what we want!
“It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. ”
Your arithmetic does not add up. The lowest population states have about 500,000+ people, and congressional districts are about 600,000 people give or take. A state with three times the population of the lowest population state would have more than one congressman.
Also, penalizing states that have more population is part of the design of the US government. That is why there are two senators from every states, regardless of population. You can say that a person from Wyoming has about 70 times as much opportunity to elect a US Senator as a person from California, but that is part of the design.
The US is supposed to be a union of states, not a union of all people directly.
You seem to be repeating yourself at the end there, but then again your whole post is a repeat of one that was addressed on a previous thread, complete with repetitions of obvious fallacies such as a 269-269 electoral vote in 2000 and Montana having three times the population of another state but only having one congressman.
#10 Which States does Montana have almost 3 times as much population as, and what is the ratio?
A system in which a candidate who received less than 50% of the national popular vote was elected would not accurately reflect the popular opinion.
It would be better that when the nation was unable to choose a president, that the House of Representatives should resolve the question.
The apportionment math for U.S.A. Reps is the *Method of Equal Proportions* — based on square root of N times (N+1).
A State may have a bit ***under*** square root of 1 x 2 = 1.41 average gerrymander Census population and NOT get a second seat — i.e. the voters in MT.
P.R. and App.V. — to end the gerrymander EVIL rot.
12 –
“A system in which a candidate who received less than 50% of the national popular vote was elected would not accurately reflect the popular opinion.”
You mean a “system” like, oh let’s see…like the Electoral College “system” in 1824, 1844, 1848, 1856, 1860, 1876, 1880…?
…1884, 1888, 1892, 1912, 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996, 2000?
If an election in which the president is elected with only 45% of the popular vote does not accurately reflect popular opinion, how does one elected with presidents elected with only only 55%? Only 60%? Or anything less than 100%?
Are you proposing that we should instead institute an electoral system fashioned after that of North Korea?
Kim Il Riley! I like the sound of it!
It would be better that when the nation was unable to choose a president, that the House of Representatives should resolve the question.”
No, it wouldn’t.
So…wanna arm wrestle to decide the issue, or should we all elect an “Arm Wrestling College” to decide the matter for us?
Polisci 00000001
Under 50 percent = Minority Rule = monarchy/oligarchy — i.e. MOST of world history – i.e. control by EVIL statist NUTCASE folks and their EVIL control freak agendas.
Over 50 percent = Majority Rule = Democracy — a small part of world history.
Direct and indirect variations of the above.
See the John Locke Treatise on Govt (1690) — one of THE major works of Western Civilization — many places online — regarding why rational governments are formed — think criminals, domestic and foreign.
Montana has less than twice the population of Wyoming, the lowest population state. Sheesh people.
A system in which a candidate who received less than 50% of the national popular vote was elected would not accurately reflect the popular opinion.
It would be better that when the nation was unable to choose a president, that the House of Representatives should resolve the question.
For once, we agree.
#12 Barney Snoogle
The candidates were trying to achieve a majority of the electoral votes. When no candidate received a majority, as happened in 1801, 1825, and 1837, the House of Representatives or Senate resolved the issue, as specified in the Constitution.
If you are going to use popular votes to determine the winner, then a majority requirement is quite reasonable. Individual States have used such a procedure in the past, and Congress has deliberately provided time to conduct a runoff or alternative procedure.
There is no reason that your NPV scheme could not have a runoff, other than your sloth.
1824 was more like the 2008 Democratic nomination, where Clinton received the most popular votes, but Barack Obama had more delegate votes.
#18 –
You’re entitled to your expectation that a majority of popular votes should be required to elect a president under the NPV scheme. Of course since you don’t support the NPV scheme, that expectation is entirely irrelevant. I know of no NPV supporters who feel a majority is required, and certainly the compact as written does not require a majority, nor should it, nor need it. Your expectation is also at odds with the thinking of the majority of Americans, as is generally the case with your opinions.
Again…as usual…you posit an illusory “weakness” of the NPV scheme as if it is unique to NPV and not to the election of the president under the current implementation of the EC. Or have I missed a post of yours in which you criticized the EC because it elects presidents with less than a majority of the popular vote and thereby does not reflect the “popular opinion” of the nation? I’m betting “no.”
The reason the NPV scheme does not “have a runoff” is not sloth. It’s simply unnecessary. You tediously and repeatedly insist that the NPV scheme “should” or “could” or “ought” to resolve problems that exist under the current EC. It will resolve only the one problem it’s intended to resolve – that being to ensure that the candidate who received the most popular votes will become president. I’m sorry this troubles you so, but I suppose that’s to be expected from a Republican tool who thinks the current system is rigged in his party’s favor.
Say, by the way – who’s writing your script for you these days? Some bored GA out there in East Pachyderm Regional Tech? It’s really getting remarkably trite.
Less than 50 percent = ANTI-Democracy minority rule — LOVED by math morons and EVIL monarchy/oligarchy types.
See the gerrymander MONSTERS in the Brit House of Commons especially — many elected by minority votes.
#19 A true compact among the signatory States would involve negotiation among the States.
The NPV scheme is more like when the new care salesman negotiates with the sales manager on your behalf. He will be pretending to work for your, but it really non-negotiable.
He’ll come back with a hang dog face about how the sales manager said no. And then say it doesn’t matter, because he, Barney Snoogle, would take care of any problems.
How many supporters of the NPV scheme have you ever asked about the lack of a majority provision?
How do you know whether Americans have thought about the issue. American Idol always has a final round. Why would they expect something different for American President?
21 –
There you go again, Jimbo, spinning on the head of the needle.
A “true compact” is an agreement among states that “involves” whatever the states signing the compact want it to “involve.” Sorry you don’t like that fact, but it’s fact. In this particular case they desire to participate in a cooperative counting exercise to determine the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes and make that person president. It’s a counting exercise – not a negotiation.
Many polls have shown Americans, by a significant majority (that’s more than 50% – no need for IRV – so calm down Jimmy) would prefer to have their president be the person who receives the most popular votes cast nationwide on Election Day. Surprisingly, there have been no polls conducted to determine whether Americans would like to have their president elected on the final round of “American Idol” voting, or “Dancing with the Electors,” or whatever reality cooking show is the source of your most insipid political ideas.
Really, Jimbo, ditch the freshman cutie who’s doing your ghostwriting. She may have a great tush, but as a thinker she’s a real lightweight.
Dear Biffle Spiffle,
Did any of these polls ask whether Americans wanted the same candidates on the ballot? Or did the pollsters recommend that no questions be asked that those paying for the poll wouldn’t like the answer.
24 –
Dear Jimbo, you enormous Republican tool…
So…Americans who, according to you, want their president selected a la “American Idol” would be such deep thinkers that they would change their answer to the pollsters if they considered the possibility that the candidate of the American Turkey Feather Party was on the ballot in California and not in Utah?
Just say the words.
“I don’t like the NPV scheme because the Electoral College favors Republicans.” You know that’s what you feel. You know that’s what you believe.
Just say it.
You’ll feel better, and you won’t have to bother anymore with citing objections to “weaknesses” of the NPV scheme as if they are unique products of NPV and don’t exist under the current EC scheme.
God, what a tool.