November is upon us sooner than we think; let’s see, only three months away. Primaries are next month. These will help decide the survival of the fittest so to speak. Just about every state in this country of ours has primaries for many political races and on every level. The races for the U.S congressional and senatorial elections will help set the tone in Washington and will affect the next couple of years. The elections that are coming up are in fact going to decide the balance of the political parties serving in the states and nation’s capitols.
Many people in this country take the stance of why bother to vote, mine doesn’t count anyway. This is a misnomer and all because of the sorely outdated Electoral College process used in the presidential elections. We pretty much all agree that popular votes should be what counts, not the votes of the delegates from each state. The delegates should be allowed to influence the nominating of presidential candidates at the national conventions.
We can’t forget the train wreck of the 2000 Presidential Election between Al Gore and George Bush in the state of Florida) more like the state of confusion. We as Americans need to exercise our right to vote and the choice of who we want to represent us. Many of our lawmakers tend to forget after they get elected to public office the constituents who put them there. They sit up in their “ivory towers” and become unattainable and hide behind a cloak of secrecy and illusiveness.
There are so many hotbed issues to address this coming November. So much has changed since almost two years ago, when President Obama was elected. Many Americans who voted for him are beside themselves and questioning why they even did to begin with. The National Tea Party put itself on the map; they were always around but are even more vocal in the last year or so.
Also becoming more prevalent is the separation of the two party system. We are seeing politicians splitting from their original party to become independents. More and more people are aligning themselves with either being conservative, liberal or even being affiliated with the Working Families or National Tea Parties.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
BB,
Your argument for NPV is nothing more than the emotional fit of a scorned debutante.
The Electoral College is the last thread that keeps our country from the chaos of a pure democracy or the dysfunction of a parliamentary system.
Our Constitution established a representative republic. The federal government was established as an agent of the individual States. The States were given sufficient sovereignty to act as a firewall to protect the People from the tendency of the federal government to co-opt our natural rights. To achieve this, the founders created the House of Reps to be the People’s House and the Senate to be the body that represented the States.
The Founders also insisted on indirect taxation, where the States assumed the responsibility of collecting taxes.
The 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution effectively stripped our nation of the safeguards of our Republic. The last thing that insures our Republic is the Electoral College. Take the Electoral College away or make it effectively meaningless and we complete the journey to democracy.
Democracies throughout history always have devolved into either monarchies, dictatorships, or vassal states of other totalitarian states. A few examples: Biblical Israel, Ancient Greece, Germany in the 1930s, just to name a few.
You may choose to reference my argument against the NPV, here and here
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. Every vote would be counted for and assist the candidate for whom it was cast – just as votes from every county are equal and important when a vote is cast in a Governor’s race. 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. It does NOT abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The United States has a “republican” form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 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.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Why should one state be forced to give their electoral votes to a candidate they don’t want? If you enact this popular vote scam you are removing from states the right for their electorate to vote for who they choose. This is a liberal plot to force states to conform to the “will of the people” when that “will” is manufactured. THE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY SPELLS OUT HOW THIS VOTING WORKS AND THOSE THAT WANT TO CHANGE IT HAVE ULTERIOR MOTIVES TO DO SO. Period.
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, .
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (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.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
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
The “chaos” in Florida was a planned response by the Democrats to use “chaos” to obfuscate their attempt at stealing the election. Whenever there is noise and public outcry’s at election results, it is the left invariably screaming about not getting what they want. In Florida, where the Republican won the vote each and every time, the attempts to prevent military ballots or count or not count “hanging chads” was the left’s doing. In Minnesota, where the Republican won the first election and a couple of recounts after, the Democrat finally won and the recounting stopped as the protests died down. Election theft is widespread in Democrat controlled cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia. The same is not true in Republican dominated areas.
The problem with third parties is that they will hurt the people they are most in agreement with and therefore help those they most disagree with. If some conservatives vote for the Tea party and split the conservative vote between the Republicans and Tea Party, then the Democrats can more easily win with a minority. Bill Clinton only got 43% of the popular vote in his first election. But he got 100% of the Presidency. This is a golden opportunity for Republicans to rid our government of many, many elected Democrats and a split popular vote will only help the Democrats. That is why the Democrats are helping the Tea Party get on ballots across the country hoping to win via having the largest minority view and then imposing that view on all Americans as they steal the fruits of our labor, and force feed our children their amoral morality. Tea Party members and Republicans have a common enemy and need to be united in overthrowing the dictators we currently have running our government.
BB!
Now isn’t it great you brought these points up. The Electoral College and the ever present threat to the “Powers that Be”, the 3rd Party.
It’s hard to believe we’re this close to mid-terms and both questions are far from the political stage. I think people are focused on survival this time round.
But I was waiting for the debate, so here’s one bloggers thoughts.
Regarding the Electoral College, I believe it must be. Removing it would bring us one step closer to pure democracy, and chaos. I think of it as a cornerstone of representative government. To remove it brings us one step closer to one man one vote (except for certain counties in NJ) on issues, not just congressman.
I think the chaos if Florida was entirely at the voting booth level, the popular vote side of the equation. I suppose many will have more to add thus trying to subtract from my view, but for brevity I’ll wait and see.
As to a 3rd party. If one actually becomes prominent enough to win elections on anything other than a small wave, you can expect a 4th and 5th and 6th. I am sure the 3rd party will be a vote wasted, but if it succeeded, our Republic would soon turn into a parliamentarian (see England, Israel) system, and I also don ‘t believe that would be a good thing.
I’m for retaking the two parties from within and creating change in that manner, although it will be a hard path. The powers at be, are not going away without a fight. Perhaps that lends our system stability, perhaps that will be why we don’t stop the train before we hit a wall. I’m not sure which will happen, but one will, and I’ll admit to my fear of the wall right here and now.
I look forward to considered responses.