According to this story, the Republican National Committee, meeting this week in Tampa, will consider a resolution putting the committee in opposition to the National Popular Vote Plan. The article says that California has passed the plan, but Governor Jerry Brown still hasn’t signed the bill, AB 459.
Some of the statements expressed by various Republican Party officials are not true. The founding fathers never intended the Electoral College to operate the way it does today. Furthermore, the National Popular Plan does not “junk” the electoral college; the plan keeps the college. Some of the speakers are confusing tradition with the text of the U.S. Constitution.
Expect more lying to the LCD’s in the Republican party faithful by the higher ups in the GOP. Note: this goes on in the Democratic party as well, but just not as much in my opinion.
Ah yes, the article is from the Washington Times that fine bastion of journalism.
Saul Anuzis – hmmm, sounds like Saul Alinsky to me. Anyway, on November 2, 2010, Sun Myung Moon and a group of former Washington Times editors purchased the paper from Moon’s son, Preston Moon, for $1. Yep, still a Moonie paper.
The E.C. is one of the 3 ANTI-Democracy gerrymander parts of the EVIL U.S.A. regime of death, destruction and deficits.
1/2 votes x E.C. gerrymander areas having a bare majority of the E.C. votes = about 28-30 percent of the popular votes
ABOLISH the timebomb Electoral College.
The 1787 top secret Federal Convention robot party hacks made all sorts of compromises from Hell – the Senate, the E.C., slaves = 3/5 free person for House apportionment, etc. etc.
Result — the CHAOS in Devil City — undeclared wars, INSANE deficits, etc.
This is 2011 — NOT the EVIL 1787 political STONE AGE.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V
REAL Democracy N-O-W — regardless of ALL of the math MORONS with any fixations about 1776-1789.
If the EC were currently “stacked” to the Democratic Party’s advantage rather than the Republican Party, there would be no such letter.
From the article:
In their letter, Mr. Perry, Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell warned that the “states that sign onto this plan could withdraw from it ahead of any election in which their favored candidate is expected to lose the national vote, destabilizing elections even further.”
They also argue that close national elections could produce contentious recounts such the Florida fight in 2000 — in every state.
“This would result in endless litigation, making it highly unlikely that a president would be able to assume office on Jan. 20,” they wrote.
——————-
The NPV compact sets July 20th of the election year as the “blackout date” for withdrawal from the plan. At that time there would be no nominated candidates. An attempted withdrawal after July 20th would be unconstitutional.
As for the second argument, the “what if it’s a close election?” version of the “what if…” arguments, I always have a good chuckle at them. The implication is that the winner-take-all scheme now widely employed under the EC somehow inoculates the country from post-election day confusion, recounts, litigation, etc. In 1876 four states were the target of intense post-election machinations, including extra-legal and patently illegal efforts such as extortion, bribery, and physical intimidation (you know, like all those Republican party officials who formed a mob and gathered to physically threaten the Miami Dade County Elections Commissioners in 2000).
Did the winner-take-all EC scheme prevent them? No. In fact, it abetted them.
For one of my primary reasons for supporting the NPV compact, I ask readers to consider the extensive election fraud which was perpetrated in Ohio, 2004. It occurred precisely because of the winner-take-all employment of the EC. With modern polling science (obviously never anticipated by the Founding Fathers, by the way) it is now possible to point to one or two states and calculate with 100% accuracy that if the election can be “won” in those states, the general election will fall to that “winner.” Give the legislature and the governorship to a single party as was the case in Ohio in 2004 (and Democrats would do and have done the same thing when given similar opportunities, kiddies) and the temptation will be very great to steal that state’s electoral votes. And it can be done, given the winner-take-all use of the EC. If NPV is instituted, however, that kind of election fraud becomes impossible. How can you “game” the national popular vote count? You can’t.
Great Comments Cop of Tosca.
And to address the “endless litigation” charge . . .
The U.S. Constitution, existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee “finality” in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January.
The U.S. Constitution requires the Electoral College to meet on the same day throughout the U.S. (mid-December). This sets a final deadline for vote counts from all states. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has interpreted the federal “safe harbor” statute to mean that the deadline for the state to finalize their vote count is 6 days before the meeting of the Electoral College.
Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets on the day set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
#5 The 1880 election was much closer than the 1876 election, yet this is rarely noticed because the EC was decisive. I can’t find any mention of this election on the NPV scheme website. Do you suppose the good folks there are simply ignorant of the 1880 election; or are all too aware of it?
There were congressional elections that year that had more votes switched after it was contested than the margin in the national popular vote. The District of Columbia still hasn’t counted the votes for some candidates from 2008.
How do you “game” the “national” “popular” “vote” “count”? You don’t let some candidates on the ballot in some States. You are careless with who votes in other States. You let voters vote in two States. You make lots of accidents.
Why not start out with something simple like using the popular vote for nominations? Have a real compact where the election officials negotiate common and uniform election standards. If you want to play, you play by the rules. If you don’t play by the rules, your votes aren’t counted.
#8
Nice in theory. Look how effective it was for the debt ceiling negotiations. Then translate that over to partisan elected officials negotiating.
Here is a little reading for your enjoyment. Once you’ve read we can talk.
http://www.every-vote-equal.com/tableofcontents.htm
FYI – the “gaming” you speak of is already happening. Everyewhere! And by the way don’t forget that the two major parties set the “rules” and look what that has done for improving the electoral landscape. Luckily all NPV has to is follow the constitution which I am sure the Dem/Reps will chagrin.
8 –
Whether the 1880 election (or any other election for that matter) was close or not is irrelevant to my entirely valid assertions that the 1876 election was rife with fraud and outright crime, and that the only reason for engaging in them was that the winner-take-all EC scheme made the prize achievable by those means. When the targets of such activities can be focused on one or two states, thanks to the winner-take-all EV scheme (which also was not the intent of the FF’s), you’ll get…oh, you know…something like Ohio in 2004. But since Ohio flipped to your liking, I suppose a little bit of electoral fraud ain’t so bad, eh?
Furthermore, whether the winner-take-all EC scheme resulted in a winner by a frigging epochal landslide in 1880 is also irrelevant to supporters of the NPV plan. What matters to them and myself is that the winner of the popular vote be awarded the office of the Presidency. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
And once again, you predictably throw out existing problems with elections, such as deadline dates for certifications, as objections to the NPV scheme, implying that those are problems newly created by the NPV plan itself, and that somehow the EC WTA scheme prevents those problems from occurring. As if we’ve never had certification dates emerge as the focal point of an election. 2000…you do remember, don’t you?
But thanks for underscoring my point about the red herrings raised in opposition to the NPV compact.
As for the nominating process, I might support a popular vote for nominations, and I certainly support standardizing election procedures. I think you ought to write up an interstate compact or two to institute those changes, and maybe we can put them into effect …after we’ve instituted the NPV scheme and get rid of the winner-take-all EC scheme, perfectly consistent with the words of the US Constitution as it is currently written. Or do you have a problem with strictly interpreting the words the FF’s actually wrote into the Constitution?
9 –
Brad, I’m giving some of Jim’s comments second thought.
For instance, I suppose it is possible to keep the Democratic candidate off the ballot in Idaho, or the Republican candidate off the ballot in Rhode Island. I mean, who would know? And if we’re careless enough to not notice that a candidate was dropped from one or two states’ ballots, I suppose we might all be just oblivious enough to not notice the traffic jam caused by a few million voters in Arkansas driving over into Tennessee to vote a second time. And then on to North Carolina to vote a third time.
Lots and lots of accidents can happen, after all…
…unlike in the pristine elections we have thanks to the protection afforded by the winner-take-all EC scheme. Thank goodness for that faultless system, eh?
# 7 Some folks have never heard about the old Quo Warranto stuff — now one more Civil Action in most States —
i.e. to test the legality of ANY public officer holding a public office — election results, qualifications, etc.
NO uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL parts of the U.S.A. in the NPV SCHEME from Hell
— What is to stop children, felons, foreign aliens and even outer space aliens from voting for a Prez/VP in 1 or more of the usual suspect State/DC regimes ???
Still waiting for an answer from a usual suspect.
#7 Many States did not make official declarations of their vote counts by the 6-day deadline before the meeting of the electors. And yet the NPV Scheme assumes that the members of the compact will themselves be able to get the official vote counts from all 50 States plus the District of Columbia in time for them to be complete their certificate of ascertainment in time.
Susan Mvymvy, Richard Winger, Brad M, and Bargain Shopper haven’t yet explained how this magic will happens.
#9 The only mention of the 1880 election in your pamphlet was that California had a split electoral count.
The pamphlet spends a massive amount of time discussing whether the compact is legal, but little whether it is good policy. Basically you had a bunch of lawyers who came up with this all too clever scheme, and were so fascinated by the process, they forgot what the end result was intended to be.
13 –
There goes Jimbo, dancing on the head of a pin again. He makes a big deal out of these deadline dates juxtaposed against “official” vote counts. In fact, he tells us in #8 that “The District of Columbia still hasn’t counted the votes for some candidates from 2008.”
So then…I guess we still haven’t “officially” elected Obama?
#15 Obama was not popularly elected.
Under the current constitution of my country, neither the States nor the Congress have sufficient authority nor jurisdiction to organize a popular election for the presidency.
There is a procedure for amending that constitution to provide such an election.
Advocates of the NPV scheme don’t like that answer because: (1) It’s hard; (2) It’s not as clever as the NPV scheme.
I’m advocate for NPV. I don’t mind your answer because your answer doesn’t matter.
NPV is using the Electoral College. Full stop. End of story.
Also –
NO approval of the OBVIOUS interstate compact NPV scheme from Hell by the gerrymander Congress, Art. I, Sec. 10.
Blatant violation of 14th Amdt, Secs 1 and 2 by the NPV scheme from Hell — i.e. election results INSIDE a sovereign State of the Union being determined by results OUTSIDE such State.
The scheming NPV MORONS from Hell are a bit OVER-clever in their MORON statutory fix machinations.
SCOTUS awaits to wipe out the NPV scheme from Hell if it somehow magically gets going in reality — i.e. somehow gets past all the injunctions, appeals, etc.
16 –
Another dance on the head of a pin from Jimbo the Republican Tool.
Under the current constitution of MY country, the state legislatures have the right to appoint electors to the EC in whatever manner they want, including a national popular vote count. Any one of them could make their appointments of electors on the basis of the height or weight of the candidates, in fact, if they so chose. Their constituents might not like it, but the very clear language of the Constitution of MY country would certainly permit it. You can shovel that “back door amendment” crap all you like, but it’s still crap no matter how high it gets piled.
And by the way – I resent the inference that somehow YOUR country is not MY country.
Now, Jimbo…put your hands back over your ears, close your eyes, hold your breath, and return to pretending that you’re a professor of political science, even though you apparently can’t read and/or comprehend the simple words the English the Founding Fathers wrote to create the Electoral College.
#17 The NPV scheme uses the EC. It does not produce a national popular vote.
#19 Where did I refer to the NPV scheme as a “back door amendment”? I didn’t. But you appear to be one of those like Susan Mvymvy who seem to think because something is legal, means that it is a good idea.
A State could let each voter cast more than one vote to determine its electors. That would make more sense than using height or weight, IMO. Under the NPV scheme, member States would be legally obligated to count all those votes.
Or a State could let corporate persons vote, or non-citizens, or even non-citizen corporations. And members of the NPV compact would be obligated to count all those votes.
A compact could restrict voting to one vote per voter, and use a common definition of voter, and make sure that the same candidates were on all ballots, and that voting hours were the same, and that there was a method of actually canvassing the vote and ensuring that there was a majority
So why didn’t they propose that?
21 –
“There is a procedure for amending that constitution to provide such an election.” (See your 16 above).
Forgive the egregious liberty I have taken. You freely lump me with Richard, Susan and the others who support NPV. Surely you’ve seen that more than a few of your Republican toadie comrades object to the NPV compact as a “backdoor” attempt to amend the constitution – an amendment which you strongly, repeatedly, and WRONGLY aver is required to employ the national popular vote within the existing EC.
Your other comments are typically hysterical and foolish. They’re getting very old by now.
As I’ve suggested before…you really need to make sure that Scalia and the rest of your Republican cohorts on the USSC get cc’d with your preposterous suggestions. They’ll need all the ammo they can get to legislate from the bench and impose their personal political beliefs on the nation…again.
But first, Jimbo – try reading the language in the Constitution that created the Electoral College, would you? You really should do that.
It would be your first time, right?
A real national popular election would have the same candidates on the ballot, the same voter qualifications, a government-directed nomination procedure, substantially similar voting procedures and times, a common canvassing scheme that would provide for recounts. A constitutional amendment would give the authority to Congress to provide for these procedures.
If you were honest, you would admit that your NPV scheme would not provide these.
The conservative justices on the SCOTUS might be more willing to go along with the supreme and plenary clause. It was the activist judges who ignored it in decisions like Anderson v Celebrezze, or ignore similar provisions in cases like Tashjian.
You might get a 9-0 decision in favor, between the liberal judges who don’t care what the constitution says, and the conservatives who are unwilling to get involved in cases of misguided public policy.
The presidential election procedures in the Constitution have been repeatedly amended. Why not change them.
23 –
Again with the red herrings. I’ll say it again…you and your fellow Republican tools repeatedly raise objections to the NPV plan as if the current implementation of the EC insulates the country from those very problems. It does not.
To answer your question “Why not change them (presidential election procedures in the Constitution)?”…AGAIN…I say – have a ball – go ahead and do it if you can. But the thing that really gnaws away at you is the indisputable FACT that the constitution does not need to be amended in order to implement the NPV plan.
I’m really beginning to believe that you never have actually read the Constitution, Jimbo.
#24 Barry Scary,
The so-called “national popular vote” scheme will not implement a proper national popular vote, equivalent to a statewide popular vote for governor or senator.
It might be an Undeniably Indisputable FACT!! that a train going too fast around a curve will run off the track. That doesn’t make it a good thing. Even you must be capable of understanding that.
Are you suggesting that if I read the Constitution more, that I might have discovered that the 14th Amendment removed the need for an increase in the debt ceiling?
Have you actually read the California Constitution? The NPV Scheme violates its terms.
25 –
Jim, you enormous tool. I truly really am weary of your apparently genetic evasiveness. You answer one simple question with another obfuscation. But you will not answer questions if the answers displease you. Again, you do not disappoint. What the hell did I say about the debt ceiling?
Jesus, what a tool.
Read the words in the Constitution which created the Electoral College and answer the goddamned simplest of questions – is the NPV scheme inconsistent with that text or not? Yes, or No. May states choose their electors in whatever manner they shall choose or not?
Never mind. I can’t take another evasion. Go back to being a simpering, obedient message clerk for the Republican propaganda machine. It suits you.
#26 Dear Barry Simplesimon,
Any method that the States use to appoint their electors must be consistent with other provisions of the Constitution. For example, your state’s legislature may not direct that its electors be appointed on the basis of an election in which white males over 40 have been excluded.
If you had not read any part of the US Constitution other than the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article II, Section 1 may not have realized that.