-82 votes

"National Popular Vote" Bill Needs Your Support. House Vote Coming Very Soon. Act Now!

[Editors/posters note: Please notice that this only pertains to presidential elections, NOT state elections for senate or anything else.]

Online activism? Easy. Make a difference.

Visit NationalPopularVote.com, enter zip code, and press "Go".

Four out of Five Americans were ignored in 2012 Presidential Election.

The "National Popular Vote" bill would guarantee the Presidency to the
candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The "National Popular Vote" bill was just approved by
a House committee, and the bill is expected to come up for a vote on
the House floor very soon.

"National Popular Vote" Bill Is Now at Half-Way Point.

This is the moment when legislators decide which bills to support, so
please tell your State legislators to support the "National
Popular Vote" bill.

Here is a recent video criticizing the Electoral College:
Video Link: The Daily Rundown: Scrap the System?

Here is some background on the Electoral College at: Scholastic.com

Here is a Daily Paul post on the Electoral College: http://www.dailypaul.com/228763/lesson-how-the-electoral-col...

Let's fix this beast. Act now!

Visit NationalPopularVote.com, enter zip code, and press "Go".



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Whether popular music or

Whether popular music or popular votes, the decision of the majority in many cases is frequently wrong. The dangers of the popular vote formed the basis of our original bicameral republic. Trying to sell this very bad idea on the basis that it currently has broad support means nothing favorable.

"in many cases is frequently wrong" ??

What? What's that even mean?

The only relevant poll/study I've seen is that when younger and younger people are included, the results get more and more free market, laissez faire and libertarian. This worked all the way down to age 5.

Besides, I think we've overcome the issue of "traveling those month long trips to DC to discuss that issue."

^ TROLL ^

mvymvy is a cut-and-paste troll.

Garan's picture

Part of the cut-n-paste problem is..

..is that people keep making the same points and similar comments that have already been made.

I once was deposed for 10 hours by an aggressive prosecuting attorney with no case. He kept asking me (nearly) the same question over and over while accusing me of "parroting" my answer. My response was "The same question gets the same answer".

Maybe that is what mvymvy is doing.

It takes a lot of time responding to people who create redundant comments.

Bad idea...the president is

Bad idea...the president is an office much more powerful than the founding fathers ever intended. Now you want to put the brainwashed masses in charge of electing him or her? This will only lead to a more extreme welfare/warfare state....all with the best intentions to help the poor here at home and to spread democracy worldwide. Terrible idea, the only reform that needs to be made(other than doing away with electronic voting machines) is to change to a proportional distribution from the electoral college as opposed to winner takes all.

Garan's picture

The "brainwashed masses" already elect the president..

They just do it in a way where your vote either counts or doesn't count depending upon which state you happen to be standing in (so to speak).

The power of the president's office is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with as well. Yet, I wouldn't let one problem prevent you from fixing another.

..and yes, we need to do away with winner-takes-all representation, because that is a mis-representation and proportional distribution would be better representation. Also, a populous vote for U.S. president would be more proportional than the current winner-takes-all approach to the electoral college.

Issues with Proportional

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.

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.

If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the presidential election would be thrown into Congress to decide. In 2000 that would have 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 gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

So there is a manufactured

So there is a manufactured problem regarding our elections and those pricey black box voting machines.....and suprise, suprise our officials decide to replace our current system with the best deMOCKracy that money can buy....instead of focusing on the "lost" votes, vote flipping etc.

Classic case of create the problem and play dumb., and then step forward with a "solution". Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Nah. This is trying to

Nah. This is trying to 'improve' democracy. We don't need improved democracy. We need to destroy democracy. We need to restore the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Then what? let a few large

Then what? let a few large American cities on the coasts elect the POTUS? That's a very bad idea. Why don't you just abolish the Senate while your at it too. The EC needs reform away from winner-take-all. We do not want or need a popularly elected president.

NPV is Reforming the EC away from state winner-take-all

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

National Popular Vote IS reform away from state-by-state winner-take-all laws. The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states).

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. This feature cannot be changed by state law or an interstate compact.

In fact, equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides:
“No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states.

In contrast, the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigns the power of selecting the manner of appointing presidential electors to the states. The enactment by a state legislature of the National Popular Vote bill is an exercise of a legislature’s existing powers under the U.S. Constitution.

In short, enactment of the National Popular Vote compact has no bearing on the federal constitutional provisions establishing equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate.

'Every vote everywhere would

'Every vote everywhere would be equal' I don't support that I think that's a bad idea. Under the current system a voter in a small state such as Wyoming or Delaware has up to 2x the voting power of someone in NY or CA. I think that is fantastic. Now, winner take all is no fun so I propose as has been proposed by others before: That one elector be awarded to the highest vote getter in each congressional district. Two at large electors for each state be awarded to the highest vote getter for the state overall. That's common sense reform, Constitutional, consistant with the framers wish to balance states and population and the big one, would let 3rd party candidates win some electoral votes.

Small States Support a National Popular Vote

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson argued that Virginia should switch from its then-existing district system of electing presidential electors to the statewide winner-take-all system because of the political disadvantage suffered by states that divided their electoral votes by districts in a political environment in which other states used the winner-take-all approach: “while 10. states chuse either by their legislatures or by a general ticket [winner-take-all], it is folly & worse than folly for the other 6. not to do it.” [Spelling and punctuation as per original]

The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. A smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 20%) that now get overwhelming attention, while 80% of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

NationalPopularVote

Popular Vote is Still a Bad Idea

I had forgotten about gerrymandering issue. Toss out the congressional district Idea. Just proportion the electoral votes based on the vote totals. So the smallest states like Wyoming have 3 electoral votes so you need 33.3% of the vote to get one elector(about 81k votes). The largest state, California, has 55 so you'd need 1.8% of the vote or about 198k votes to get one elector.

So even though you'd need a greater percentage of the vote in a smaller state to get an electoral vote, you'd need less voters overall. 3rd party candidates would thrive and we wouldn't have to abandon a balance between States and population.

Now to address the big cities issue I brought up earlier which you glossed over. The 7 largest metro areas are as follows: (Just to give you a heads up the suburbs and exurbs of these places are not conservation, yada yada Orange County no that was 20 years ago already.)

1. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA
3. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA
4. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA
6. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA
7. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA

These seven combine for a total of 83 million people. Divided by the 314 million population of the US = 26% or fully 1/4 of the population. Not the paltry 6% as you tried to claim earlier. So what you would have is a presidential election dominated by two coasts and a lake shore, the rest of America would be irrelevant. Popular vote is a Bad Bad Idea. Don't need it, don't want it, aint gonna support it.

Sources:
a)http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/
b)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_primary_statistical_areas

PS Those 9 small states are idiots for supporting a popular vote.

Now 80% of States and Voters are Ignored

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

Even in the recent handful of states where a presidential vote matters to the candidates, the value of a vote is different.

Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election. None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual. About 80% of the country was ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. It was more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

In apportionment of federal grants by the executive branch, swing states received about 7.6% more federal grants and about 5.7% more federal grant money between 1992 and 2008 than would be expected based on patterns in other states.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like comprehensive immigration reform, water issues in the west, and Pacific Rim trade issues.

“Maybe it is just a coincidence that most of the battleground states decided by razor-thin margins in 2008 have been blessed with a No Child Left Behind exemption. “ - Wall Street Journal

As of June 7, 2012 “Six current heavily traveled Cabinet members, have made more than 85 trips this year to electoral battlegrounds such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a POLITICO review of public speeches and news clippings. Those swing-state visits represent roughly half of all travel for those six Cabinet officials this year.”

* *

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

* *

With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

I'm not going to read your

I'm not going to read your plagiarized 'cut and past' drivel. Go away. Winner-take-all is a huge problem. Your plan is just to get rid of it and replace it with something equally bad if not worse.

"In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.'

You obviously don't live in CA.

Schwarzenegger a republican? hahahaha this is getting more ridiculous by the minute!

Some Republican Supporters

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

On June 7, 2011, the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47–13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21–11. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17–7.

Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: "I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.

National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."

Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson (R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.

National Popular Vote's National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), and David Durenberger (R–MN) and former congressman John Buchanan (R–AL).

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote " http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ include:

Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

James Brulte served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

So You're Claiming Reagan wasn't a Republican?

I actually DO live in California.

California recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger.

They were/are Republicans.

A state-by-state process of adopting Proportional would fail

There is a prohibitive political impediment associated with the adoption of the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis by individual states. 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 Bill Owens and to reject, by a two-to-one margin, the ballot measure in November 2004 to award Colorado’s electoral votes using the whole-number proportional approach. This inherent defect cannot be remedied unless all 50 states and the District of Columbia were to simultaneously enact the proportional approach. This inherent defect cannot be remedied if, for example, 10, 20, 30, or even 40 states were to enact the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis. If as many as 48 or 49 states allocated their electoral votes proportionally, but just one or two large, closely divided battleground winner-take-all states did not, the state(s) continuing to use the winner-take-all system would immediately become the only state(s) that would matter in presidential politics. Thus, if states were to start adopting the proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining winner-take-all states and thereby decrease the chance that the additional winner-take-all states would adopt the approach. A state-by-state process of adopting the proportional approach would bring itself to a halt.

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.

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.

If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the presidential election would be thrown into Congress to decide. In 2000 that would have 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 gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

Any vote is totally useless

Any vote is totally useless until you can have a transparent and verifiable vote count! /thread

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

This would be a good thing -

This would be a good thing - if people were informed!
If people bothered staying informed, we wouldnt be in this mess to begin with.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Gilligan's picture

Hey Garan and mvymyvmyy...

Here is a video which clearly explains why the National Popular Vote is a Very Bad Idea. This presentation totally clarified the issue for me. It is an expert on the topic named Brad Zinn speaking at an Arizona GOP LD meeting. (The relevant part starts at 24:00 and ends at 33:40.) Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PSqnG2b7l8

Google is government.

Garan's picture

My Feedback on the "Very Bad Idea" of the National Popular Vote

O.k. I had to get some sleep before reviewing this video, but here it is.

I mostly watched the 24-33 minute section.

Saying that a popular vote for U.S. president is "the end of the republic" is only true if the president is a dictator. The over-growth of the Presidential position and it's abuse of power is (mostly) a separate issue. The senate still gives representation to the smaller states, so the republic is still represented strongly through the law-making branch of government. The President is supposed to Preside through oversight and occasional objection/veto, not through creating laws (ahem, "executive orders") and trying to manipulate the entire government to his vision. That is a perversion of the presidency. Current presidential actions are atrociously inappropriate and illegal in my view. However, the speaker in the video is overstating the importance of the presidential election.

The speaker says that direct election of the president is democracy. That's not true. He is ignoring the other branches of government which are not the result of nation-wide public voting. Furthermore, holding one nationwide populous vote every 4 years is not a democracy. A democracy would involve everyone voting at least on a monthly or weekly basis.

Saying that a democracy is "2 wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner", speaks to the idea of the power of the vote not being limited. The inalienable rights are supposed to protect the individual from becoming dinner. His joke sounds good, but the emotional impact blinds people to the inaccuracies of the wolf analogy.

The idea of tiers of representatives starts to break down with the increase in distrust and corruption. That's where my gut starts to object to the idea of elected officials further electing representatives. However, I'm not solid on that opinion and don't speak much towards that.

The speaker speaks about slates of representatives, which is yet another perversion, created by the (effective) two-party system.

Winner-takes-all is a big problem of mis-representation in all areas of government. Winner-takes-all should be avoided where ever it can be. Unfortunately, in some voting arenas slates are probably unpreventable (like with party convention voting of delegates).

The speaker says he is a constitutional conservative when he responds to an elderly man. The elderly man was pointing out the fact that with delegates pledging to vote a certain way, we currently are violating the constitution and are effectively voting directly for the president. The speaker quickly agrees and gets back into his conversation on how to game these pledged delegates for the GOP; saying "so we don't elect the president on a popular vote...". I'm sorry, but that is flimsy. He just sidestepped the old man's counter-point; agreeing with the old man, and then immediately states the opposite in his presentation. The speaker might be mistaken, might be a lier, but definitely is pushing through his prepared presentation. It is not an open discussion.

The speaker is not academic. He is a gamer who is helping one political party, with "some" idealistic sensibilities. He is not the best source for pure political thought. However, it is interesting to see how he presents his points for his purpose.

Overall, I don't think he is wrong on everything. He is definitely informed.

He speaks of the votes being negated and says "that's how the National Voting Compact works". I think he is inaccurate, and here is the irony. The National Voting Compact formalizes a special case/situation that already occurs with the electoral college voting system, where votes are negated (I like to say votes are "rounded-off"). Votes are already routinely negated with the electoral college system (for U.S. president). However, the National Voting Compact makes sure the electoral college works such that the popular vote always wins, instead of the opposite possibility with the existing electoral system where a bare-minimum (I don't know the actual number) minority of voters win the U.S. presidential election. That is what the the political parties are constantly trying to game. They are constantly trying to win with a minority of voters, as well as get a majority if they are able.

The speaker goes on to say that this changes the constitution, yet he doesn't present much to support that statement. He makes an argument, yet not enough to clearly show that the constitution is changed. He basically glosses over the issue, then states his conclusion as fact.

He begroans the idea that the courts must ultimately decide this. However, that is how this is supposed to work. The courts ultimately settle the unsettled disputes, and each side doesn't just get their way. So, yeah, if you are in an argument and think you are right, you don't want the possibility of a court saying you are wrong.

With modern political analysis and techniques, the electoral college in a nation-wide public election, creates one big game board for the political parties to manipulate the public into a potentially highly mis-representative decision.

Having a populous vote for U.S. president doesn't solve all the problems with mis-representation, manipulation, and bad decision making, however it does greatly lessen the effects of the powerfully manipulative organized political party's influence on the outcome through what I like to call, "gaming the system".

The National Voting Compact both exposes and utilizes the mis-representative nature of the electoral college system to implement a populous vote for U.S. president. In other disciplines, this would be called "hacking the system", which in itself is not good or bad, it's simply a tool that could be utilized either way. In this case, I think the overall impact of this "hack" is well intention-ed and is an improvement over the negative impact the current "gaming" produces.

That is current my view. Let me know if you have any other counter arguments or other material that might change my view.

Garan's picture

Thanks. I'll check it out.

.

Ron Paul opposes this.

He believes in the (small r) republican form of government.

You elect and empower delegates to operate on your behalf.

(The issue arises when they exceed the granted authority, but that's another story.)

Garan's picture

Yeah, but why a delegate for the U.S presidential election.

What is the purpose in that?

It seems like just another unnecessary mis-representation (rounding-off of votes) that offers more opportunity for abuse.

I don't need someone voting on my behalf for the U.S. presidential election.

Regardless of what people believe regarding whether there should be a populous vote for the U.S. president, that is what we have, except the vote is distorted through the electoral system when electing the U.S. president.

The electoral college in other areas of government is a different issue.

Constitution, Article II, Section 1

" Article II - The Presidency

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

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.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States....."

I'm sorry you do not understand.

It is a (small r) *republican* form of government.

People elect DELEGATES to represent them at the next level and delegate their voting authority to the delegate. Whether the delegate is a state legislator, congressman, or state party delegate, it is the same principle.

If you do not understand this principle, then you cannot understand the reason for how and why we fought at the state conventions on the credentials, tallies, rules and bylaws, to maintain and promote the (small r) republican form of government, which was the system of government the founding fathers intended our nation to have an elaborated why this is a superior form of government in pretty much all of their writing universally.

Garan's picture

President President President.

I said it a bunch of times to try and make it clear that I am not talking about any other vote for any other office.

I see no need for electoral college delegates for the presidential election.

Other elections and other delegates are not even part of what I am discussing.

I always say we are "supposed" to be a republic. Things have become distorted over time.

From what I read, most people do not believe elected politicians represent their interests. So, ultimately, the U.S. government is not behaving like a republic of delegates, even if is supposed to be a republic by design. I just see the election of the president to be a separate issue, and that changing to a populous vote for the president does not change the way all the other offices are filled. The government can continue with whatever remnants of a republic it still has, and maybe representation can be improved to the point that the U.S. government starts behaving like a republic once again. ..with a populous vote for the president.

Well, Gee Whiz...

...Your quote...."I see no need for electoral college delegates for the presidential election."

Ponder this.......Who really cares what YOU see no need for?

Go ahead and peddle your snake-oil, but I have to break it to you...it appears that people here are not buying it.