1. From the article:

   “It’s a direct attack on our republic and will lead us down the path to what is known as direct democracy, that is, direct government ruled by the majority, often referred to as mob rule,” said Robert Hathorne.

   Maybe we should instead consider something like an anti-IRV system. If an election results in a candidate getting more than 50% of the popular vote, we TAKE AWAY the votes of the person getting the plurality, until there are no candidates with more than 50. Then the the candidate with the largest vote total is given the win.

   No…that wouldn’t work if there are only two candidates, would it? OK, how about this? The candidate with the SECOND highest popular vote total is awarded the win. Screw the “mob” majority. What do they know anyway?

   Also from the article:

   “That theme was echoed by former state Rep. Barbara Blewster, who said the founding fathers set up the electoral system so that residents of states voted for electors, people who were more learned on the issues of the day. Then the electors would go to Washington and decide who would make the best president.”

   Good point, but she doesn’t account for the fact that modern day electors don’t ride to Washington on horseback and wear wigs while doing so, so I think she needs to give her argument some more careful thought.

   I’m sure, though, that she’d have no complaint whatsoever if we heeded the wisdom of our founding fathers and made possession of a pair of testicles pretty much a requirement for becoming an elector. And being “learned” on the issues of the day would not be enough. They’d also have to have the courage to override the wishes of Arizonans if they happened to vote in the majority for the “wrong” candidate. That’s what’s she’s saying, right? That she expects her states’ electors to vote for whomever they feel is “right” for the job, regardless of what the Arizona “majority mob” voted for in November?

   I wonder what Cliven Bundy would do if THAT happened and the person he and a majority of Arizonans voted for got rejected? I don’t think he’d quite get the argument for applying the federal concept to the election of the president.

2. If Washington D.C. enfranchises 16 year old voters, would their votes be counted under the NPV scheme?

3. Should Arizonans be offended that the vote of a sixteen year old black person is somewhere counted?

   I think most Arizonans would be deeply offended by your implication, Jimbo.

4. Local authorities cannot change the voting age for national elections. So far two towns in Maryland have lowered the voting age to 16 and it affects municipal elections. DC does not have “home rule” and congress can overrule any decisions made by the DC govt (as they have done for gun control). There is no way 16 year olds from DC will be allowed to vote.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.