Thomas Taschinger, editorial page editor of the Beaumont, Texas Enterprise, says here that if the National Popular Vote Plan were in effect, Republicans would be more likely to win presidential elections.
Thomas Taschinger, editorial page editor of the Beaumont, Texas Enterprise, says here that if the National Popular Vote Plan were in effect, Republicans would be more likely to win presidential elections.
NPV would benefit any American voter who would prefer that his or her vote have precisely the same weight as the vote of any other voter.
But it is refreshing to hear a partisan Republican approach the conversation about the EC anachronism with something other than the usual fiction about what the Founding Fathers’ intent was in devising this “ingenious” system, isn’t it? Instead of defending the decrepit EC because it is perceived as being to the advantage of the Republican party, now we have a Republican reconsidering and supporting the NPV because it will be to the advantage of Republicans.
Oh…and wait for it…now they can admit that the NPV is “fair,” too.
NPV fairness and climate change. What “new realities” will the Republicans embrace next?
NO uniform definition of Elector-Voter in the junior high school stunt NPV scheme from Hell.
Note also 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — ABRIDGE [delute] right to vote for Prez electors.
—
PROPER const amdt —
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the USA – including colonies.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Demo – it was in junior high school that you should have learned how the constitution specifies how electors are to be chosen…
“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.”
…but perhaps you were concentrating solely on your grammar at the time.
In any event, NPV is not a “stunt.”
It is a collection of states agreeing to select their electors in a manner they direct.
If you don’t like the constitution written as it is, then you should convince 34 states to amend it.
If the legislature directs that electors be chosen by popular election, that election must be conducted in compliance with the Constitution, particularly, the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments.
Now imagine if your favored party, the Lunatic Moose Party, had a candidate for Governor, but Maine forbade the ballots in Aroostook County from having the LMP candidate.
You would still be able to vote for the LMP party, so is there any impairment to your right to vote?
Now imagine that your NPV Scheme is in effect. You want to support the LMP presidential candidate. But the LMP candidate is not on the ballot in some states.
Does Maine injure your right to vote by entering into an agreement where your favored candidate is less likely to win because many voters could not vote for the LMP candidate.
And if I wanted to vote for the LMP candidate, under the current implementation of the EC, but lived in another state in which the LMP was not on the ballot…?
As usual, Jimbo disparages the NPV plan by raising objections to existing inconsistencies and weaknesses of our current system, implying that the NPV compact is to be rejected because it does not solve all of those problems.
We’ve heard all this before.
You want to discuss solving some of those problems, perhaps you and I will find some common ground, since I share your view that leaving our voting process to 51 distinct whims and fancies in a “federal” system is a dumb way to elect a national executive.
But Jimbo – see my response above to your colleague. If you don’t like the Constitution as it’s written, you should amend it.
(Incidentally…I’m moving next month. Check with Richard for my forwarding address.)
You don’t live in another state.
You seem to believe that because one part of the Constitution says that a legislature may direct the manner of appointment, that such manner may ignore other parts of the Constitution.
Perhaps you even believe that Maine could keep the LMP candidates off the ballot in Aroostook County.
It is unconstitutional for Maine to enter into a scheme, where no matter how much you play with the LMP lever it has no effect.
It is most unlikely that a serious candidate for President would run without qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states. Serious candidates for President generally qualify for the ballot in all 50 states.
● Ross Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states in both 1992 and 1996.
● John Anderson was on the ballot in all 50 states in 1980.
● Lenora Fulani, the nominee of the New Alliance Party, was on ballot in all 50 states in 1988.
● The Libertarian Party got its presidential nominee on the ballot in all 50 states in 1980, 1992, and 1996.
● Ralph Nader (who received only 2.7% of the national popular vote in 2000) was on the ballot in 48 jurisdictions.
Um…the idea that a Maine county might keep someone off the ballot was your premise, not mine.
And as for intra-constitutional inconsistencies, I could argue that the EC, HOWEVER it might be implemented, would present precisely the problems you postulate…you big technicolor Republican tool, you.
So you just prove my contention again. You want the NPV to solve all the problems that already exist. NPV does not need to do so to be implemented.