-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".

Comment viewing options

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

I answered, but I'll explain further.

You asked "Do you support nationalism or federalism?".

My full answer starts by saying that the question is half of the answer, and I don't think I am either nationalist or federalist.

It might not appear that I answered the question, because your question didn't offer an answer that fits me.

I say that I am either against federalization, or for the minimization of federalization.
What I mean by "federalization" is the coming-together of states (or even other federal governments coming-together).
I think the coming-together of states is the first step of what inevitably becomes a bloated beast of centralization.

Furthermore, our Federal government seems to have a tendency to further federalize (to make itself part of a bigger whole) into the international scene, which is even worse.

The E.U. is a federalization that is quickly exposing the downsides of federalization.
So, I think the E.U. failure is a sign that federalization ultimately does not work, and I hope this is all one big evolution where we are finding out the limitations of centralization.

..or we are entering hell. We'll just have to find out I guess. I'm hopeful, and love watching Nigel Farage, because he seems to keep his spirits above it all.

Nationalism? I can't even get past federalism. So, No to that.

Nationalism vs. Federalism was a central debate ...

... during the framing of the US Constitution.

Nationalism is where there is a strong central government, whereas federalism is where power is decentralized (not a strong central government).

It gets confusing because some people try to twist words. For example, Alexander Hamilton was a nationalist but he knew that nationalism was unpopular in a society that had just fought a war against a strong central government, so he called his political party the Federalists. Those who were the true federalists (did not want a strong central government) then called their own side the Anti-Federalists. So back then, the Federalists were nationalists and the Anti-Federalists were federalists. Such is the way of politics.

The people running the EU believe in nationalism -- one world government, where THEY are the ones in the driver's seat. And you are right, the EU is a disaster for the people because they are giving up (in many cases, without a vote) their own political autonomy (such as it exists at all).

So, if you see that nationalism (a strong central government) is a bad idea, what is your view of the 17th Amendment?

Garan's picture

The 17th amendment

I don't see why this would even be an amendment.

Each state should decide how their senators are elected.

Why normalize/standardize all the states.
That creates a fragile system, where problems and failures are duplicated across all states.
It is a completely unnecessary imposition on states.

I think a majority of states should not be able to impose themselves on a minority of states.
There should be a bill of rights for states, just as there is a bill of rights for citizens.

I was about to say that I don't even think there should be a U.S. Federal government except maybe a Federal defense. Now I wonder if we should even have that.

My use of the word "federalization" comes from reading "The Tribes and the States" by W.J. Sidis.

I use it as a generic term for the conglomeration of political units.

I guess I lean towards no centralized government. So I resist commenting on the Nationalism vs Federalism.

Also, I believe in trying to maintain a personal clear view which involves not adopting confusing terminology or sometimes even spellings. So even though I may lean towards what you call true federalists, I would have to say I am against federalism in general. Specifically, and occasionally there is value, yet in general, it should be avoided or disband.

The native americans claim that the British american colonies adapted the idea of Federation from the american indians and their federation of tribes. The tribes went through several federation successes and failures. I think the problems of federation were exposed by the native americans before the United States was ever started.

.

.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

NPV does Not eliminate the Electoral College

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes-- enough ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s ELECTORAL COLLEGE 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).

Perhaps Some Are Confused, But...

...some of us are fully aware of the near final-slaughter of the Republic that occurred in 1913 which included Amendment XVII, which effectively killed a primary method of 'State's Rights/State Sovereignty'.

technically

they're pointing out that this has already been done to Senate seats.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Garan's picture

Perhaps votes for Senate seats should be changed back..

I'm fairly ignorant of that issue.

I always thought it was strange we've had state-wide popular votes for two houses in the federal government.
It seemed redundant. I'd have to look closer at what happened with the 17th amendment before I can start saying anything strong about that.

However, I still see the presidential vote as a separate story.

Also, there are other ways the Federal government has grown.
I've always looked toward the U.S. Federal government's over-use of inter-state commerce laws a a huge way that they've involved themselves in state matters.

if you are not familiar with the 17th

and the associated shenanigans, perhaps your grasp of the Constitution and the original intent is not as strong as you think it is. in fact, maybe some of what you're supporting now has been presented to you in such a way that though you mean well, you're actually working against yourself. that is, if liberty is your goal.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Is there a Bill somewhere?

Or is this simply a petition similar to those ridiculous things at one of the White House web pages?

Garan's picture

Here is something about that.

I am getting all of my information from NationalPopularVote.com and what ever personal opinion I've adopted over time.

It looks to me like this is the only organization making headway on making the presidential election a popular vote.

Here is what they say:

"Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538)."

They also say: "The National Popular Vote law has been enacted by states possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate it."

In 2011, they had 25% of the needed electoral votes.
So they are making good progress.

I received an email urging for support earlier today.
I am from Minnesota.
So, maybe it is only immediately applicable here.

Either way, this seems to arouse some testy debate and posturing.

As with most people, I am learning as I go.
However, this has always been a pet peeve of mine.
I'm sick of my vote for president not even getting counted due to the electoral college system.

Check the bill's status in each state

The National Popular Vote compact has been introduced in all 50 state legislatures over the last 7 years. More than 2,110 state legislators have either sponsored it in their state legislatures or cast a recorded vote in favor of it. The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

You can check the bill's status in each state at NationalPopularVote.com

direct democracy...

..by dumbed-down dependents of centralized government...no thanks!!!

NPV is Not Direct Democracy, Does Not Centalize Govt

NPV ensures the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly, not candidates to represent them.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

as if we ever really win.

the choice is always between two plates of shit anyway.
generations raised on looting their neighbors.
what difference does it make how votes are counted when our choices suck and our people ignorant? are you implying things would be better if romney had won?

i suggest the problem is not a procedural one.

***edit***
oh yeah, TommyPaine, you rock.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Liberty4Me's picture

The founders did NOT want democracy

NPV is democracy. Only the populous areas of the nation will be important under NPV.

It is up to the people to watch over their government, yet we have been systematically and deceitfully removed from that oversight. We are supposed to have neighborhood "committeemen" (not "members of town committees") that run the show, whereby the people could present and support their selected candidates, exert the influence of the people, and recall those that don't represent the people once elected. This is where the real power lies -- control of the political process.

Try going to a town party meeting and talking real politics -- it ain't happening. They're all just party cheerleaders who are told what and who they get, and to go run petitions.

What we really need to is to become "The People" again. The system hasn't failed, we have...

Only 20% of States/Votets Politicallly Important to Candidates

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.

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 ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

NPV is Not Pure Democracy

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

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. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

Hey, Garan and Mvymvy ...

... I think you guys might be the same person, but either way, I have a simple question for (both of) you, which should cut to the chase:

Do you support nationalism or federalism?

Garan's picture

I'll be happy to answer. (& no. I have only 1 DailyPaul account)

Overall, I think federalization in inherently mis-representative and either should be minimized, or shouldn't even exist.

The federal government is it's own beast that looks out for it's own concerns which are not the concerns of my state or local government.

However, I'm not against trying to improve the messed-up system we currently have.

Honestly, I think too many people are lost in ideals and haven't studied how our current voting system actually works.

Occasionally, I'll stood my ground, even if it is a loosing battle.
So, I guess I've decided that with this issue.

I'm definitely not helping my Daily Paul rating by engaging in discussion about this issue. So, I really don't stand to gain through all of this.

I just hope some people will at least look a little closer at this topic and not be so one-sided.

You didn't really answer the question ...

... and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you think you did.

But, I did not ask about "federalization." I asked about "federalism" vs. "nationalism."

Which side are you on -- federalism or nationalism.

These are two opposing views, so I don't see a middle ground. If you think there is, explain.

Otherwise: nationalism or federalism?

Garan's picture

..just a note.

I replied to this in another branch of this posts's replies.

If anyone is still reading this post, the response is here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/278960/national-popular-vote-bill-n...

Powers of State Governments Would Not Be Changed

As I just posted below:

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

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.

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), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

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

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

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. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states. That majority of ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

Don't give me a cut-and-paste job ...

... just answer the question: Are YOU a nationalist or a federalist?

Garan's picture

LOL Mvymvy is funny. :) ..and not me, by the way.

I've been reading mvymvy posts which at first looked to be cut-n-paste to me.

I'm starting to think the person is actually writing this stuff, which is pretty impressive if that's the case.

From what I can see, the posts make a point, and are not completely repetitive.
So, if it is a cut-n-paste job, they have a lot of material to work with.
Otherwise, the person just might be an expert with numbers and the subject area.

However, I have to admit, my eyes glaze over when I see too many numbers and am forced to connect all the dots in order to fully grasp what they are saying.

Summaries might work better.

So, I just have to laugh. ..and try to understand. Bush? Lol

I'm a fast typist and tend to be long-winded ...

... so I can understand if someone writes their own posts that just happen to be long.

I don't believe that is the case with many of mvymvy's posts, because they are posted very quickly and are too perfect (spelling, grammar, punctuation, historical analysis, numerical analysis, etc.).

It is a BIG slap in the face IMO when one person in a "debate" is stating their own ideas and arriving at their own conclusions for others to consider and then another person just copies what someone else wrote about the topic.

I find it VERY offensive. I don't think you are doing it, but I am certain that mvymvy is (and I'll take your word that you are not him, as I see you post your own thoughts).

And give all those psycho

And give all those psycho socialists in CA and NYC an even bigger say?

No thanks.

Garan's picture

The big states would loose power with a popular vote for pres.

The winner-takes-all in combination with the electoral college eliminates the representation of the loosing votes in the "powerful" states, which could be as many as 49% of that state's votes.

A popular vote would take a large part of the big states power away, and allow the minority of votes to be counted at the national level.

The "psycho" majority would loose anywhere from (shooting from the hip) 30% to almost 50% of the influence they currently have.

If you hate the influence of CA and NYC, then a popular vote for president would be good, not bad.

Red States are More Red Than Blue States are Blue

None of the biggest states are as Democratic as many people seem to think. The highest percentage achieved by either party in the 12 biggest states in 2004 was Bush’s 62% margin in Texas (which generated a bigger popular vote margin for Bush than Kerry received from far-larger California).

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 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). But, John Kerry received 55 electoral votes from California, while Bush received only 33 from the seven western states.

BMWJIM's picture

Are you out of your feaking mind. Popular vote?

51% telling everyone else what to do. Screw that.

Jim

1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.