The National Popular vote

The discussion about Detroit and Philadelphia reminded me of an article I read last week about The National Popular vote.

Seems this movement is gaining ground as 18 houses have now passed the bill. It was introduced in the WV Legislature last year but apparently failed. It's only a matter of time.

When this takes effect, we will literally be governed by large metorpolitian areas.

So, I'm thinking 2020 is the year we become a totally socialist government which means we'll be bankrupt by the time I'm in my golden years.

Nah, don't sweat THAT.

To replace the Electoral College with a National Popular Vote would require 2/3 of both houses of Congress (including the Senate, which favors the small states) and then 3/4ths of the states (including the small states again). WV, in even considering this, shows it's ignorance. If you want to make WV even less powerful in national affairs, by all means get rid of the electoral college. As it stands, Bush won in 2000 by 5 votes and West Virginia has 5 electoral college votes. Had Gore won WV in 2000 (instead of going there twice and obviously screwin the pooch with gun owners) Florida would not have mattered. If memory serves, WV sent Wise to the Governorship on the same ballot.

But anyhoo, the Constitution can only be amended through Herculean means, and if the Wyomings and West Virginias of the country acquiesce to a nationwide popular vote, then they deserve whatever marginalization comes from it. But I don't see it happening in our lifetimes. I'd worry more about what the elected officials will surely do to us than how they will get their jobs.

You are correct about smaller states foregoing their influence. But you might want to look again with regard to how this thing comes about. The information in the link says that the Electoral College came about as a part of the Great Compromise. Just as the smaller states had a voice in the slavery question, so too would they keep their voice in the selection (no pun intended) of the president. It is up to the states to decide how to allocate their electoral college vote. This highjacks the whole concept in favor of the two coasts and any population centers. It is perfect for Obama and other 1) eggheads or B) ethnics.

Hi OC,

Sure it is up to the states, but that is the case anyway. I see it as very unlikely for a state to want to lessen it's own influence, particularly the small ones, without others doing the same and at the same time.

For example, here in Illinois, which is among the bluest these days (and I'm feeling kinda "blue" as a result!) I see no possibility of the state legislature saying the Republicans should be getting a few of our electoral college votes. Right now the only states that split their votes are Maine and Nebraska.

So, I'm thinking 2020 is the year we become a totally socialist government which means we'll be bankrupt by the time I'm in my golden years.

We're already nine (9) trillion dollars in the hole. How much more bankrupt does it get than that?

ziggy wrote:

So, I'm thinking 2020 is the year we become a totally socialist government which means we'll be bankrupt by the time I'm in my golden years.

We're already nine (9) trillion dollars in the hole. How much more bankrupt does it get than that?

I guess we'll find out if Obama wins considering he proposes to spend $200 Billion MORE then GWB spent this year.

Throw on top of that the number of baby boomers that will be collecting social security and using medicare and the new prescription plan, and I think we'll find out just how broke we can truely be, all thanks to YOUR socialsit government entitlements.

And that doesn't even take into consideratin the national health care play you socialist want to mandate.

OK, Cassandra (literary reference), so repent and be saved or pass the malt liquor! I don't get the point of fretting!

It is up to the states to decide how to allocate their electoral college vote.

I favor keeping the electoral college system. But I would like to see the states enact proportional electoral college voting instead of winner take all state by state.

Most states still allow for faithless electors, don't they? I seem to recall West Virginia had an elector vote for Bentsen in 1988. According to Article 2, any state can act as Ziggy desires, and I can see states doing so in a vacuum, particularly if they are "purple." But by and large, the "unit rule" chosen by the state legislatures make the states more politically important and therefore much more likely to be visited and cared about by the candidates.

SheikBen wrote:Most states still allow for faithless electors, don't they? I seem to recall West Virginia had an elector vote for Bentsen in 1988. According to Article 2, any state can act as Ziggy desires, and I can see states doing so in a vacuum, particularly if they are "purple." But by and large, the "unit rule" chosen by the state legislatures make the states more politically important and therefore much more likely to be visited and cared about by the candidates.

In West Virginia, the law directs that state parties chose their electors at party conventions. But no law requires electors to be faithful to the party or to the general election vote. And occasionally an elector will jump the fence and vote his or her own mind rather than for the party candidate.

Thanks for the inside info, Zig. I remember the faithless elector issue coming up when Robb threatened not to vote for Bush in 2000 (or someone else did it "for" Robb, I don't recall which).

SheikBen wrote:Nah, don't sweat THAT.

To replace the Electoral College with a National Popular Vote would require 2/3 of both houses of Congress (including the Senate, which favors the small states) and then 3/4ths of the states (including the small states again). WV, in even considering this, shows it's ignorance. If you want to make WV even less powerful in national affairs, by all means get rid of the electoral college. As it stands, Bush won in 2000 by 5 votes and West Virginia has 5 electoral college votes. Had Gore won WV in 2000 (instead of going there twice and obviously screwin the pooch with gun owners) Florida would not have mattered. If memory serves, WV sent Wise to the Governorship on the same ballot.

But anyhoo, the Constitution can only be amended through Herculean means, and if the Wyomings and West Virginias of the country acquiesce to a nationwide popular vote, then they deserve whatever marginalization comes from it. But I don't see it happening in our lifetimes. I'd worry more about what the elected officials will surely do to us than how they will get their jobs.

But Mike, there is no need to worry about the Electoral College or amending the Constitution, is there.

If the Republicans start appointing Super Delegates ...... it won't be long before the Primary or General Election will not be worth the time for the general populace to even vote.

Voting for "Party choice" ...... is no choice at all,

.

SheikBen wrote:Nah, don't sweat THAT.

To replace the Electoral College with a National Popular Vote would require 2/3 of both houses of Congress (including the Senate, which favors the small states) and then 3/4ths of the states (including the small states again). WV, in even considering this, shows it's ignorance. If you want to make WV even less powerful in national affairs, by all means get rid of the electoral college. As it stands, Bush won in 2000 by 5 votes and West Virginia has 5 electoral college votes. Had Gore won WV in 2000 (instead of going there twice and obviously screwin the pooch with gun owners) Florida would not have mattered. If memory serves, WV sent Wise to the Governorship on the same ballot.

But anyhoo, the Constitution can only be amended through Herculean means, and if the Wyomings and West Virginias of the country acquiesce to a nationwide popular vote, then they deserve whatever marginalization comes from it. But I don't see it happening in our lifetimes. I'd worry more about what the elected officials will surely do to us than how they will get their jobs.

Think again Sheik. I followed the bill in West Virginia. While the US Constitution provides that the electorial college elects the president, the state can decide how to allocate their electoral college votes. The bill introduced in the West Virginia Legislature called for West Virginia's votes to allocated based on the popular vote for the president. You can thank me, sometime, because I was one of the folks that spent the time to follow the bill and raise a stink about it.

Cato,

I would not thank you for such an act. I disapprove of it entirely.

It marginalizes the importance of West Virginia in favor of not only bigger states but also states with the standard "winner take all" unit rule.

Beyond that, as Aaron has mentioned, making the electoral college follow the popular vote gives power to urban over rural areas, which would strike me as something you would not necessarily want.

Are you opposed to states' rights, BTW? The Electoral College is one of the few places where states still have real power as units of government.

A state allocating it's electoral college votes in keeping with the state's popular vote still would not necessarily mean that the nationwide popular vote getter would win. Let's say that WV has a 3-2 split. The range of potential popular vote totals is such that it could still not reflect the popular vote the same way that a 3-2 split in Maine would for the other guy. You make it less likely that the "loser" would win, but far from impossible.

And if you want the states to allocate their votes based on the national popular vote, then you have completely betrayed the purpose of Article Two.

Let's say that WV has a 3-2 split. The range of potential popular vote totals is such that it could still not reflect the popular vote the same way that a 3-2 split in Maine would for the other guy.

Then maybe let's say a 2.7 - 2.3 split might be better? That could be done by splitting electors- requiring them, collectively, to represent the popular vote in the state, calculated down to the closest 10 percent of an elector's vote.

Yeah, that work Frank.

Until you get a third party candidtate that takes 10% of the vote then no one wins and the H.O.R decides who the President is going to be.

And you think politics are partisan now.

OK. How about:

Green Party 10 percent

Republicans 44%

Democrats 46%

The electoral vote would be .5 votes for the Green Party, 2.2 votes for the Republican, 2.3 votes for the Democrats.

What would be wrong with that?

Nationally

Green Party-10%=54 Electoral votes

Republicans-44%=237 Electoral votes

Democrats-46%=247 Electoral votes

You might be able to allocate how the electoral representatives vote based on popular votes withouth changing the constitution but one thing you CANNOT change is the required 270 electoral votes needed to win. Under the above sceniaro, the House of Representatives wins because they get to vote on the President.

Like I said, if you politics are partisan now...

Well, if that's what the Constitution provides for, then what is wrong with it? But if someone wants to do away with political parties altogether, I am OK with that too.

Go back to the way it was. Whoever gets the most votes is President. Next on the list is VP.

Can you imagine Al Gore as GWB's VP.

Go back to the way it was. Whoever gets the most votes is President. Next on the list is VP.

Why not?

Partisan political bickering and partisian alliances distract from and discourage independent thinking and new ideals.

The biggest thing partisan politics prevent is a mob rule/majority imposed menatlity.