The National Popular Vote Plan organization has found legislators to introduce its model bill in 47 of the 50 states. Almost all of these bills will be introduced in the first month that state legislatures convene in 2007. For most states, this is January 2007. The National Popular Vote Plan, described on this page in the past, is a means to bring about a presidential election system in which the person who receives the most popular votes nationwide will also win the electoral college.
Plan “B” file with the International Court, via all United States Citizens, per Guam, United States Virgin Islands, PR, Disctrict of Columbia, and each and every state?
Plan B, if followed, might lead to secession, so yeah, I guess it’s a good idea!
I’m all for Secession. If and when elected President in 2016, I will give each State & Territory a Seccesion vote, and return all land to the Native People.
Any way to find out the 3 States that don’t have such a Bill sponsored, yet?
Closest I found was this: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/ which only has 29 states listed.
Would the NPV help or hurt third parties or do neither?
The FINAL END of the failed imperialist AMERICAN EMPIRE!
Sell off Hawai’i, Guam, the other ‘Others’ for Mega bucks.
Swap Alaska for Vancouver Island and the ‘Canadian “South Bank” streach’ from the Great Lakes via the Saint Lawrence’ Sea Way Canal.
Much more defendable than the present set up.
Would the NPV help or hurt third parties or do neither?
============================================
I can’t see it helping elect a third-party president. The two major parties would likely benefit most since each has strong built-in constituencies that bring along huge blocks of votes.
This Nation was never ment to be a Democracy,so this idea of changing the electoral college would divide this nation in two rural against the Major population centers,so basically you would have a 5or 6 states running the nation,a Bad idea
Charles, I disagree on two levels. First, I don’t think the current system has any particular helpful role for rural America. Most states with large populations are not battlegrounds, and only battelgrounds matter in modern presidential races.
Second, our framers’ view of democracy was complex. They certainly believed in democracy for the U.S. House, and saw the House as the most important single part of the government (where you start the process of appropriating money, where you declare war, where you initiate impeachment) and every Member there must be elected every two years, even if filling a vacancy. I’m sure they would shudder at what presidential elections have become — they believed it was dangerous when some states mattered more than others, and right now the only people that matter are those in battlegrounds.
As to third parties, moving to a National Popular Vote is the right policy based on democratic principles, and so are changes that directly address the democratic rights of third parties like instant runoff voting and proportional voting. Success with the NPV plan will unleash political imagination to change our democracy for the better — it of course will be up to us to make it happen.
I agree with Charles Broy. Our Founders established this country as a Republic with only certain portions of the government (ie: the U.S. House of Representatives) directly elected. I still believe the original concept is best.
Why would Democratic legislators in California, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts and councilmembers in the District of Columbia consider such a bill. It puts these states’ (and district) electors back in play for the Republican nominee, and, it appears, with little extra effort. (Just look at the popular vote totals for presidential elections.)
Also, if you enjoyed the battle in Florida in 2000, prepare for replays in states that adopt this law.
Finally, the constitution will still require that electors cast ballots. Will the electors from the prevailing party vote, or will a single list of electors be chosen by the state and given the task of casting the electoral votes in the prescribed manner. The proposed law does not eliminate the matter of the “faithless” elector or Congress’ right to decide whether to count a vote. All in all, this law is a very bad idea.
It certainly IS a bad idea.
It will strengthen the “imperialist” United States, and will further weaken the actual “states” part of the United States.
The president is not supposed to be, in the execrable phrase, “leader of the country,” but merely to be the — using the term loosely — leader of the government.
This nation is supposed to the united STATES of America, composed of sovereign STATES.
As a “democratic” country, with a president elected in a popular vote rather than by the Electoral College, the depredations of the George W. Bush administration will seem tame by comparison to those of future administrations.
This Nation was never ment to be a Democracy,so this idea of changing the electoral college would divide this nation in two rural against the Major population centers,so basically you would have a 5or 6 states running the nation,a Bad idea
It will strengthen the “imperialist†United States, and will further weaken the actual “states†part of the United States.
Is this any different than what it is now?
I live in NC and have voted in every election I have been eligible for, and my vote does not matter cause our state’s populace support one party over the other always. You say it’s down to 5-6 states deciding the outcome. Is California, New York, Texas, Illinois deciding an election any worse than Florida, Missouri, Iowa, and New Hampshire deciding it? I say no.
Our Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal. Then why should they not vote equal?
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! avlpcaiyoao