For once, I agree with David Anderson.
On one aspect of one issue….
Although I wouldn’t go as hyperbolic as him in calling HB 198 unAmerican or a vote stealing bill.
HB 198 is Delaware’s component legislation in a national effort to eliminate the electoral college. The measure who allocate Delaware’s electoral votes (as well as all other state’s electoral votes) to the winner of the popular vote, no matter who Delaware voters actually vote for. Basically, it is an end run around the Constitutionally established Electoral College. To change or abolish the Electoral College, you really need to pass a Constitutional Amendment, which is exceedingly difficult, and hence popular vote proponents are choosing a short cut. David is probably right that this short cut will not and does not pass constitutional muster.
Personally, I like the Electoral College, for I believe it is the best way to ensure a national Presidential campaign. While having the national popular vote determine our President is appealing, as it is the most democratic way to do things and would have assured that we never had to suffer under the horror that was President George W. Bush, it would also relegate presidential campaigns to only high population centers, like cities on both coasts, and leave the middle of the country ignored. Now, as a Democrat, that would benefit me since more Democrats than Republicans live on the coasts and in cities. But that doesn’t make it right.
If you want to change or abolish the Electoral College, you have to amend the Constitution. It is hard to do, but it is supposed to be hard to do. However, wanting to change the Electoral College is not unAmerican, David. It is the flip side to the coin of wanting to keep the Electoral College, and it is far past time you recognize that different opinions are held across this land than those contained in your religious fundamentalist mind. Most peculiar is David’s objections to plurality rule over majority rule. First, it should be noted that David even objects to majority rule and prefers supermajority rule (until of course the supermajority passes something David doesn’t like and then David will move on the the tyranny of the minority rule). But pluralities are common in elections, even in the United States. Bill Clinton was elected twice with a plurality, because both times there was a significant third party garnering between 9% and 20% of the vote. Al Gore was elected once with a plurality in 2000, because Ralph Nader’s third party garned enough votes. Richard Nixon was elected with a plurality in 1968, John Kennedy in 1960, Harry Truman in 1948, Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and 1916, Grover Cleveland in 1892 and 1884, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, James Garfield in 1880, Rutherford Hayes* in 1876….. and I could go on and on…. but all of these Presidents received only pluralities in the popular vote.
Indeed, the smallest plurality ever received by a President who still won the most popular and electoral votes was none other than a supposed hero of David Anderson, Abraham Lincoln, who only received 39% of the vote in 1860.
Pluralities are American. They are constitutional. They are what happens when you have more than 2 ideas or 2 candidates in an election. David’s aversion to them is odd, given our American history, but perhaps he wishes to rewrite history like his fellow conservatives in Texas so that pluralities never existed. If David just is a fan of majority rule, than I look forward to his support of the Senate Democrats against the obstructionist Republicans.
But I do agree with him on HB 198. Defeat that bill, Representatives.
Why would we want to change? Our Presidential votes actually count more in Delaware than in larger states. Why? Because the ratio of electoral college votes per number of voters is larger.
As far as the electoral college ensuring “a national Presidential campaign,” that is wrong on the evidence. National campaigns focus on 10 – 15 “battleground” states and pay scant attention, i.e. dollars, to the rest.
Yeah, but those battleground states are spread across the country. Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington State, Oregon, Pennsylvania.
With the popular vote, the cities of Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston will see heavy campaigning, but that’s it.
David cut us a break by not pointing out the collection of Dems who sponsored this bill:
Rep. D.E. Williams & Sen. Katz, Reps. Bennett, Brady, Q. Johnson, Kowalko, Mitchell
WTF, guys?
Personally, I like preferential voting
DD wrote: “With the popular vote, the cities of Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston will see heavy campaigning, but that’s it.”
I doubt that. Those are not “battleground” cities, for the most part. If it were a popular vote, you would see more diverse and micro-targeted campaign strategies. Right now, presidential elections are basically fought in the battleground states with the most numbers of electoral votes, like your list.
Walmart became successful because it targeted small towns that its competitors at the time wouldn’t enter. Going to a popular vote system would be great for insurgent 3d and 4th party campaigns.
Right now, the country is pretty much divided 50-50 in national presidential elections. What you would see is, let’s say, a Texas presidential candidate focusing solely on Texas which he/she could win be 65-35. If the rest of the nation vacilates between 53-47 and 47-53, the Texan wins.
This bill already passed the house. it’s up to the heavily democratic senate now. Then again, the compact doesnt take effect until enough states are signed on to control the electoral votes necessary to elect a president.
I’m with anon on WTF. It’s an idiot idea. No. Leave the electoral college alone.
I hate the electoral college and would like to see it abolished.
If the President is going to be elected by popular vote, why not abolish states entirely, UI?
The Senate is the body that represents the interests of the states. We don’t need a second one with the electoral college, which is an undemocratic institution, IMO.
Speaking of Dave Anderson, its nice at the beach. When are you scheduling the next drinking liberally here? (please excuse the rather stretched seque.)
Are YOUR Senators representing the interest of this state, UI? I didn’t get that impression.
“… a Texas presidential candidate focusing solely on Texas which he/she could win be 65-35. If the rest of the nation vacilates between 53-47 and 47-53, the Texan wins.”
An unrealistic scenario. Bush beat Gore in Texas by 1.65 M votes (59-38%) in 2000. Elsewhere, Bush lost by 1.9 M votes (47-49%) to lose nationally by 544,000.
A popular two-term governor, Bush only got 59 percent in his home state. That is pretty close to max. Only Carter in ’76 got to 65 percent in his home state, which was still then pretty much a one-party enclave. Even Reagan only got 57 percent in California in his 49-state victory in ’84.
National popular vote is an important good-government project. As Anonone points out, no general election campaigning occurs in LA, NY or Chicago [or Houston or Birmingham or Buffalo or San Diego]. National popular vote would place an incentive on motivating all voters, not just those situated in by happenstance in certain states.
I do get to vote on the senators from my state, even if I don’t agree with what they do. That’s a state issue. The problem I have with the electoral college is that someone can lose the popular vote and still win the presidency (George W. Bush).
I agree that popular vote is an important good-government issue. The electoral college, in the current era, disenfranchises citizens in states that reliably vote 55% or more for one party’s presidential candidate or the other party’s. This leaves all of the campaigning focused on ‘the swing states’ and ignores the other 40+ states.
The electoral college is an anachronism.
Yes campaigning will focus on big cities, but at least it will focus on ALL big cities, not only the big cities in the all-important swing states.
The current system certainly doesn’t lead to campaigning in ‘the boondocks,’ nor would the popular vote system. But at least the number of those disenfranchised would plummet with a popular vote system.
To UI, PBaumbach and others in the thread that want to abolish the Electoral College, do you all agree that amending the Constitution is the better way to do it. This state legislation short cut violates the Constitution in a most direct way and it also violates equal protection. Surely, you do not support that.
I support using whichever means gets rid of the Electoral College. I find this is a free vote, since the law wouldn’t go into effect unless a majority of the electoral college votes for it. I wouldn’t mind seeing a Constitutional challenge to the Electoral College.
A survey of 800 Delaware voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 79% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
By age, support was 71% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 77% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 81% among women and 69% among men.
see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#DE_2008DEC
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states. Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Delaware is not included. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule 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.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
I’m not sure where everyone else was during the last election, guy named Obama was running? I saw him in Rodney Square. Even with an Electoral College.
Eliminating the Electoral College is the shortest route to handing the government over to the corporations. It’s an INSANE idea for Democrats to support. Go read the electoral map again, the one that goes by counties.
If the electorate wants to do this, they’ll have to do it by constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court wouldn’t spend 15 minutes throwing this out, and rightly so.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote) have come about without federal constitutional amendments, by state legislative action.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,707 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska – 70%, DC – 76%, Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota – 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
I wouldn’t mind seeing a Constitutional challenge to the Electoral College.
The Electoral College is part of the Constitution, so you can only mount a political challenge, not a Constitutional challenge.
I think the states’ compact is a bad idea, but I can’t find the Constitutional hole in it. States are allowed to assign electors any way they want.
The Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): “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.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district — a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
In the 13 smallest states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by eight state legislative chambers, including one house in Delaware and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
The votes of a couple of big states, alone, could not decide an election.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
The political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
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.
When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all rules, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. 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 is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate could win 100% of the votes in the nation’s top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.
Who was the last presidential candidate to visit Delaware before Obama? Delaware gets ignored while Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are inundated. kohler is absolutely right, the states can decide how they want to award their electoral votes, so this is not unConstitutional.
My understanding is that someone could launch a challenge to the new law challenging its Constitutionality.
Brooke writes “Eliminating the Electoral College is the shortest route to handing the government over to the corporations. It’s an INSANE idea for Democrats to support. Go read the electoral map again, the one that goes by counties.”
Are you saying that it is insane for Democrats to support an approach that gives the US Presidency to the candidate who receives the most votes? Really?
Sure there are more ‘red’ counties than ‘blue,’ but this is the point–the US Presidency should be based on votes, and only on votes, not square miles, or number of counties (or states) won, or corporate contributions, etc.
Yes Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but had 96,000 voters not thrown away their vote by voting for Nader, or had retired people in Palm Beach not accidently voted for Pat Buchanan (or had the Supreme Court not stopped the recount) Al Gore would have won Florida’s electoral votes, and been sworn in as President.
There are arguments for and against a popular vote. Although some of those expressed aren’t accurate. If the President were elected by the popular vote it would not help a 3rd party candidate, because only a Ross Perot type could purchase the media necessary to get known in expensive media markets with huge populations. Under the current system a 3rd party candidate could concentrate on smaller states and win the vote in that state (but not the election), which could effect the election, but there aren’t enough votes nationally in these areas, especially after you subtract voters who will vote Republican or Democrat regardless of the candidate.
One thing no one mentioned regarding the problem with a nationwide popular vote is the risk of a “stolen election”, or mass voting problems. Smaller states, which are over represented traditionally have far cleaner elections, however there is a certain degree of error in every election. Minnesota had voter error, on a very small scale, whether it was the machine that malfunctioned etc. Large metro areas have reputations for not merely glitches (that statistically should be split evenly)but out right fraud. While people point to Illinois in the 1960 Presidential race as a prime example of voter fraud, the reason Nixon didn’t raise the issue is because they stole votes elsewhere (according to Nixon’s own supporters). Frankly if the president were elected by popular vote I’d have real concerns regarding the accuracy of the vote in certain areas. The argument that this happens today and could throw an election is true, but the effect is minimized by the Electoral College. If voter fraud (or massive computer errors that benefitted one party) happens on a grand scale in Ohio, it may effect the election if Ohio would have gone to the other candidate, but most likely it will only effect congressional races. However if that same voter fraud happened in Dallas and Houston not only would the GOP candidate win Texas by a bigger margin than voters intended, and with it the Democrats could lose a couple House races they actually won, but this could cause a GOP to be elected by the popular vote falsely. By having the electoral vote you place a cap on the damage an individual state can do in the Presidential election.
Under the current system candidate concentrate on swing states, regardless of population, and virtually ignore states that they have in the bag, or can’t win, regardless of the size of the state. A Democratic candidate has no chance in Idaho,and Wyoming and other small states, and therefore spends no time or money in the state, after a contested primary. The same is generally true in California as well. Although sometimes the GOP candidate will try and fake out the Democrat by claiming California is in play in hopes of getting the Democrat to waste time and resources in a state he already has.
This concentration of resources is not only in the on the ground effort, with paid staff, and candidate visits, but also in paid adverisement. My sister lives in California, and the only time she sees a Presidential ad is when the ad itself makes news (Obama celebrity ad), or she is visiting our parents in Iowa. Democratic and GOP candidates for President spend little or no money in areas they will carry big, or have no chance of winning, and in areas on the coasts that are not swing states, and the media costs are sky high they spend no money on TV. If PA wasn’t a swing state we would see few Presidential ads coming from the Philly market, because of the high cost.
Those who think that we would be better off if candidates concentrated on large population bases, instead of swing states, ignore the positive benefit of requiring candidates to actually do retail politics in swing states. As much as people complain about the power of early caucus and primary states, the reality is it forces candidates to go out and be tested by these residents. Prior to 2008 people complained Iowa and NH decide the nominee. That argument ignored the fact that Clinton didn’t compete in Iowa in 92 (Because native son Tom Harkin was running, no one campaigned in Iowa) and he lost in NH, and yet some how the states after Iowa and NH found it within themselves to pick Clinton. In 2004 Kerry won Iowa and then NH, but he lost several states afterwards before winning the nomination pretty early. Iowa and NH do a good job of weeding out the field, but even in Iowa money and media coverage effects who has a chance. VP Biden was well liked by many in Iowa, but because he had no money to blast the airwaves with commercials, and the national media ignored him, so did the voters/caucus goers. If we had a national popular vote for President the candidate with the most money to win the commericial war would win, while that candidate was President Obama in 2008, historically it is the GOP candidate, and I for one don’t want to go that route.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment says:
“no state [shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
It has been argued by some that it is not permissible, under the Equal Protection clause, for some states to close their polls at 6 PM while others close at 9 PM ; for some states to conduct their election entirely by mail while other states conduct their (non-absentee) voting at the polls; and for some states to permit violent felons to vote while others prohibit it (absent a pardon). However, the U.S. Constitution does not require that the election laws of all 50 states are identical in virtually every respect. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only restricts a given state in the manner it treats persons “within its jurisdiction.” The Equal Protection Clause imposes no obligation on a given state concerning a “person” in another state who is not “within its [the first state’s] jurisdiction.” State election laws are not identical now nor is there anything in the National Popular Vote compact that would force them to become identical. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution permits states to conduct elections in varied ways.
The National Popular Vote bill does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Another way to look at it is that, for example, banks own Delaware, and Massey Coal owns West Virginia, so you only have to bribe a couple of people to get the popular vote count to get anything you want there. Yeah. that gets me better government.
The potential for political fraud and mischief is not uniquely associated with either the current system or a national popular vote. In fact, the current system magnifies the incentive for fraud and mischief in closely divided battleground states because all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state.
Under the current system, the national outcome can be affected by mischief in one of the closely divided battleground states (e.g., by overzealously or selectively purging voter rolls or by placing insufficient or defective voting equipment into the other party’s precincts). The accidental use of the butterfly ballot by a Democratic election official in one county in Florida cost Gore an estimated 6,000 votes ― far more than the 537 popular votes that Gore needed to carry Florida and win the White House. However, even an accident involving 6,000 votes would have been a mere footnote if a nationwide count were used (where Gore’s margin was 537,179).
That’s shortsighted. We would be facing a NATIONWIDE recount, every election. Personally, I can write up a suit right now. The GOP held up seating Senator Franken for months. They filibustered unemployment benefits twice.
Prove you’re not an idiot and admit that a nationwide popular vote is an open-door invitation to back-room dealing on a scale so far UNHEARD of, so we can seat any government at all. Or tell me the officials of ANY party, no matter how small, won’t seize this chance to deal for goodies they couldn’t possibly win under the electoral college system, and I’ll laugh.
Iowa Demorat your full of crap. Al Gore didnt take his own state of Tn. Nader’s vote had nothing to do with Bush stealing Florida. Gore should never have given up so quickly…if the Supreme court hadnt gotten involved and stop the vote count…Gore would have won.
Brooke there is a big difference between any old recount and a recount in the presidential elections. The reason is because the electors are meeting in the middle of December. This happens no matter how messy the recount. Remember in Florida 2000, the Supreme Court stepped in for exactly this reason. They were compelling everyone involved to wrap it up in time for the meeting of the electors. No lawyers can tie up the process beyond that point. Read your Constitution and Federal Statutes.
Recounts are a red herring if we pooled 130 million votes together. 2000, for example, wouldn’t have needed a recount because nobody would have cared who won Florida when it was obvious Al Gore had the most votes in the country. I like the idea of a popular vote. Delaware doesn’t get any help under today’s system because we’re a blue state. Under a popular vote system my vote might actually be worth something.
We’re talking about a big change. I have no reason to believe, if the election hinges on a nationwide popular vote, that recount rules won’t change to reflect that. I fact, I’d bet the farm they would.
Sorry, JK, but the facts argue otherwise. What Gore did in Tennessee has no bearing on the fact that, had those Florida Nader voters chosen Gore instead, Bush would have lost. “But, but, but…” and blah, blah, blah. One thing’s certain in this world — in your own eyes, you’ve never been wrong. It’s why you have such a loyal following.
Just kidding wrote: “Iowa Demorat your full of crap. Al Gore didnt take his own state of Tn. Nader’s vote had nothing to do with Bush stealing Florida. Gore should never have given up so quickly…if the Supreme court hadnt gotten involved and stop the vote count…Gore would have won.”
Excuse me what does Tenn have to do with anything? Yes as some comedian joked “Gore lost Tenn, but Bush lost his own country”. Nader’s vote in NH and Florida was greater than the Bush’s margin of victory in either state. NH only has 4 electoral votes, but if 1/2 of the over 22,000 NH voters who threw away their vote in NH for Nader had voted for Gore (I assume you’d agree Gore is far closer to Nader ideologically than Bush!)Gore would have won NH by just shy of 4,000 votes, if all voters in NH who helped elect Bush by voting for Nader in 2000 had voted for Gore, he would have carried NH by just shy of 15,000 votes. Had this happened Gore would have received NH’s 4 electoral votes and won the election with both the popular and electoral vote.
With Florida’s electoral votes Bush received 271 electoral votes and Gore 266. Take away 4 from Bush and give it to Gore and Gore wins with 270 to 267.
If 1% of the Nader voters in Florida voted for Gore instead, Gore would have easily carried Florida, and its 25 electoral votes. There would not have been a recount!
Nader’s vote had nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s action stopping the recount, but the fact remains, if just 1% of the fools (the nicest name I can think of for any Floridian who voted for Nader in 2000 in a swing state!)who voted for Nader in 2000 voted for Gore, there would not have been a need for the recount.
I’m not excusing the Supreme Court’s decision, but I do blame the 96,000 + people in Florida and the 22,000+ people in NH who lodged their protest vote, because Al Gore wasn’t liberal enough for them, for giving the election to Bush!
lol, ID. Nothing gets my SO’s blood-pressure skyrocketing like the “N-candidate” word. 😉
Comment by beach bound :”Brooke there is a big difference between any old recount and a recount in the presidential elections. The reason is because the electors are meeting in the middle of December. … Remember in Florida 2000, the Supreme Court stepped in for exactly this reason. They were compelling everyone involved to wrap it up in time for the meeting of the electors….
I like the idea of a popular vote. Delaware doesn’t get any help under today’s system because we’re a blue state. Under a popular vote system my vote might actually be worth something.”
Actually beach bound your wrong with almost everything you posted.
1. There is no system for a national recount, your statement that there is a difference “between any old recount and a recount in the presidential elections” has no basis in fact, it is simply made up.
2. The Supreme Court did not stop the recount because the electors were meeting in mid December. I suggest you read Supreme Courts decision.
3. The Supreme Court wasn’t “compelling everyone” to wrap it up, they did the opposite and ordered the recount to stop pending the appeal to the Supreme Court, that is the opposite of what the Supreme Court did!
4. I don’t know what you mean by “Delaware doesn’t get any help under today’s system because we’re a blue state. Under a popular vote system my vote might actually be worth something” If you mean candidates ignore Delaware, because the state is blue, the idea that a state with a population to support only 1 congressional seat will fare better under a popular vote is a joke! Delaware lacks the population to matter under a popular vote, whether its blue, red or purple! However, Delaware has been a swing vote before, and could be in the future, it is only under an electoral college method of election that Delaware has any hope of mattering. If you believed your vote counts more under a popular vote, you are clearly wrong. All states have a minimum of 3 electoral votes which is .6% of the total electoral votes. However, only .28% of the nations population lives in Delaware, which mean your vote counts at least twice as much under the electoral method than it would under a popular vote method.
Someone put a bug up Kohler’s ass on this issue. are you a local?
I agree 100% with David Anderson. It is nice to see that I am not the only one on this blog. 🙂 Seriously, this is an innovative bill, it is an end run around the constitution without any safeguards. They know that there is not enough support to come close to a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. It is an under the radar way to do things that deserve a national debate.
Let’s see, do you agree on the bail amendment? Repeal and replace the Patriot Act? Mandatory minimum sentencing reform for drug offences? You can give a little more than once. 🙂 I better just say thanks for the shout out and not be picky.
I blogged this back in January and Kohler was “mvymvy” in my comments…..
http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/what-the-heck-is-this/