Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fred Thompson Promotes ‘National Popular Vote’ Initiative In Harrisburg
CBS Philadelphia ^ | October 5th, 2011 | Tony Romeo

Posted on 01/30/2012 8:06:46 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-166 next last
To: Mr. Lucky

We have the same saying in Mississippi!

LLS


51 posted on 01/30/2012 9:31:07 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Recession: You have no job* Depression: I have no job* Recovery: obama has no job!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: South Hawthorne; brityank; Physicist; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA; GOPJ; abner; baseballmom; Mo1; Ciexyz; ..

I hate all from Washington ping


52 posted on 01/30/2012 9:32:47 AM PST by Tribune7 (GAS WAS $1.85 per gallon on the day Obama was Inaugurated! - - freeper Gaffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Because it worked so well in the Senate...

Fred, sit down and shut up.

Electing the President via cumulative popular vote would simply enslave the nation to a few huge cities.

53 posted on 01/30/2012 9:39:01 AM PST by Paine in the Neck (Where's he getting these ideas? He's not smart enough to be that stupid all by himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

We are so screwed if we lose the electoral college”””

AMEN. IF we drop the Electoral College, we will have the following locations selecting our President, VP.:

New York City
Miami
Chicago
Dallas/Fort Worth
Los Angeles/San Diego
San Francisco

No one else will get any campaigning or attention. A one size fits all policy on everything will be based on CITIES needs, not the rural needs.

Following such an election, only those locations will get any support from the Federal government & they will control the country.

Wyoming-Kansas-Nevada-Alabama, etc, won’t be considered in any way, shape, or form.


54 posted on 01/30/2012 9:42:47 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck
Electing the President via cumulative popular vote would simply enslave the nation to a few huge cities.

A fast track to a rural revolt.
55 posted on 01/30/2012 9:57:53 AM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
I like Fred, but am not sure why he is supporting this.
the electoral college; was originally, included to protect the states w/less pop. from the states w/ large pop.

56 posted on 01/30/2012 9:59:06 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (kill all the terrorists, protect all the borders, punch all the liberals :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Nachum; onyx

Ping

Fred Thompson???

The rats and rinos are determined to have a one-party corruptocracy.

Several good posts. Don’t miss info in post #32 and #35.


57 posted on 01/30/2012 10:28:53 AM PST by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Wow! That boy ain’t right in the head.


58 posted on 01/30/2012 10:35:17 AM PST by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

I used to like him too. This is just pure senility. Popular vote equals the wishes of 4 or maybe 5 urban areas: NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles and a few scattered New York suburbs (I call them New Jersy, Pennsylvania, etc.).....

Where are the interests of Utah, NDAK, SDAK, etc. upheld? This country stands together or it FALLS. If you relegate the future of this country to the whims and fancies of New York and Los Angeles, you have doomed it to the same mix of government-backed immigrant (legal and illegal) whimsy that has lost almost all of the southwestern border states to illegals.

There is a reason for protecting the interests of DISTRIBUTED citizens. It must not be confused with DIVERSE citizens.


59 posted on 01/30/2012 10:37:22 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

I certainly am pleased that this guy’s presidential run was nipped early.


60 posted on 01/30/2012 10:37:57 AM PST by Radix ("..Democrats are holding a meeting today to decide whether to overturn the results of the election.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

I certainly am pleased that this guy’s presidential run was nipped early.


61 posted on 01/30/2012 10:38:01 AM PST by Radix ("..Democrats are holding a meeting today to decide whether to overturn the results of the election.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
He doesn’t realize that eliminating the Electoral College would allow the most populated states control who will be president.

It would sure spell the end of Federalism as envisioned by the Framers.

Add to that the amount of fraud it would promote. Under the Electoral Collage, solid Democrat states like New York, Illinois or California have no reason to stuff ballot boxes in presidential elections. The Democrats know they will get the electoral votes of those states. If instead you decide to go by total votes nation wide, there is great temptation to stuff the ballot boxes, especially in corrupt big cities.

62 posted on 01/30/2012 10:58:33 AM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

The application of this idea will disenfranchise the voters in the states that adopt this measure, utlimately ignoring and replacing what might have been the choice of the voters of the state with a choice dicated by the law.

Our nation is a federal republic, not a democracy.

The president is not “the president of the people” of the United States. The president is the president of the federal government of “these United States” - the states.

The people in the states choose electors in their states. The states, through their representatives among the electors choose the president.

The only greater element of democracy that might be appropriate might be to hold, under law, the votes of the electors to the choice as expressed by the voters that selected them.

A “national popular vote” is not a well-represented choice of the nation.

“The nation” is not simply a count of the people in it or a count of the people voting in it.

The nation is lived and experienced in its towns, cities, regions and states and the identity of the nation is more bound up in the combination of the identity of all those different communities (of varying sizes and dimensions) than it is some number of persons added up from all of them.

I analyzed the last eight presidential elections. In each of them the winning candidate, in electoral votes, was the candidate chosen by a majority in a majority of counties all across the nation. The loser(s) did not achieve as broad of a national support.

That kind of coverage of “the nation” to collect the electoral votes it represents, is a greater expression of the choice of “the nation” than the mere “most number of people” vote.

The “national popular vote” is another nail in the coffin of this republic that progressives want to pound into the body politic.


63 posted on 01/30/2012 11:08:28 AM PST by Wuli (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
I recall lots of people falling over each other on this site pumping this loser up for president.

This is a terrible idea.

Just another in the long line of back stabbing republicans.

64 posted on 01/30/2012 11:14:05 AM PST by Post5203 (Newter 0bama...The real Axis of Evil...Washington, New York City and Hollywood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Senator Thompson is concerned about the precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system as highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, 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.

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.

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.


65 posted on 01/30/2012 12:31:42 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

At the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference, Senator Thompson said of the National Popular Vote bill:

“I’ve looked at it, and I’m of the firm conclusion that there’s no inherent advantage for either party. Here’s where I come from it. As someone who has always been interested in our system, has been Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee,and spent a lot of time thinking about stuff like this. I don’t think, that with all of the challenges our country has. I think we’re in a lot more trouble than most people think we are in. I think we’re going to need a lot more substantial change than most people think. I think we’re going to have a have a change of thinking among the American people, not just leadership, about what we’re doing in this country., and what we’re going to have to do to keep from every other great civilization has ever done in the history of the world, and going down the other side. I think we’re at a tipping point. But, I think we’re going to have to have strong leadership, and we’re going to have to have leaders and presidents with credibility to do the things that need to be done. I think we are hamstringing ourselves when we put somebody in the Oval Office, nowadays or in the future, when somebody else got more votes. And I’m telling you, it almost happened with John Kerry, for my Republican friends. It could very well happen with Barack Obama. But it doesn’t matter. What happened to George W Bush, too. There’s no inherent. I’m just saying, a lot of the animosity, A lot of the difficulty, A lot of the anger, that I’d never seen before in politics. It came during the Bush administration. Nobody’s talking about the election anymore. But it came from that election. And I think next time it would be worse. And I think next time it’d be even worse than that. As we get into harder time and we get more angry, and people get more upset and so forth. Putting in somebody in the White House because some state legislator somewhere doesn’t want to give up the power to select an elector that means nothing. Versus having someone who won most of the votes, fair and square. That is of concern to me as an American.”


66 posted on 01/30/2012 12:36:18 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Senator Thompson prefaced his SRLC remarks by saying:

“A lot of fright and generalities and big cities and all that kind of stuff, you break it down, and it’s just not there.”

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 19% 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.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

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.

The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.


67 posted on 01/30/2012 12:39:48 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states 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 constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

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 method) 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, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (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 entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It 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 method.

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 method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years


68 posted on 01/30/2012 12:41:59 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where more than 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Presidential campaigns spend 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they aren’t hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and can win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state. 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored. That’s over 85 million voters. Once the primaries are over, presidential candidates don’t visit or spend resources in 2/3rds of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored. More than 85 million voters have been just spectators to the general election. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.

With national popular vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.


69 posted on 01/30/2012 12:43:10 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election—and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?”

& & & &

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site at
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) provides:
“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”[Spelling as per original]

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

With both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets.

Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Existing federal law (the “safe harbor” provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state’s “final determination” of its presidential election returns is “conclusive”(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).

The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.

& & &

The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.

Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.


70 posted on 01/30/2012 12:46:27 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is not a Constitutional amendment.

Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. There are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones), as can be seen at
http://tinyurl.com/3ra7elc
http://www.csg.org/programs/ncic/default.aspx


71 posted on 01/30/2012 12:50:19 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

National Popular Vote is a nonpartisan coalition of legislators, scholars, constitutionalists and grassroots activists committed to preserving the Electoral College, while guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states.

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, George H.W. Bush, and 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 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 congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), and Tom Campbell (R–CA).

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 is 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.


72 posted on 01/30/2012 12:52:37 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mvymvy

In a recent Gallup poll, support for a national popular vote, by political affiliation, is now:
53% among Republicans, 61% among Independents, and 71% among Democrats.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150245/americans-swap-electoral-college-popular-vote.aspx

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls

By state (Electoral College votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

Alaska (3) — 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters
Arkansas (6) — 71% (R), 79% (Independents).
California (55) – 61% (R), 74% (I)
Colorado (9) — 56% (R), 70% (I).
Connecticut (7) — 67% (R)
Delaware (3) — 69% (R), 76% (I)
DC (3) — 48% (R), 74% of (I)
Florida (29) — 68% (R)
Idaho(4) - 75% (R)
Iowa (6) — 63% (R)
Kentucky (8) — 71% (R), 70% (I)
Maine (4) - 70% (R)
Massachusetts (11) — 54% (R)
Michigan (16) — 68% (R), 73% (I)
Minnesota (10) — 69% (R)
Montana (3)- 67% (R)
Mississippi (6) — 75% (R)
Nebraska (5) — 70% (R)
Nevada (5) — 66% (R)
New Hampshire (4) — 57% (R), 69% (I)
New Mexico (5) — 64% (R), 68% (I)
New York (29) - 66% (R), 78% Independence, 50% Conservative
North Carolina (15) — 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), 80% (I)
Ohio (18) — 65% (R)
Oklahoma (7) — 75% (R)
Oregon (7) — 70% (R), 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20) — 68% (R), 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4) — 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), 78% (I),
South Carolina (8) — 64% (R)
South Dakota (3) — 67% (R)
Tennessee (11) — 73% (R)
Utah (6) — 66% (R)
Vermont (3) — 61% (R)
Virginia (13) — 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 54% conservative (R)
Washington (12) — 65% (R)
West Virginia (5) — 75% (R)
Wisconsin (10) — 63% (R), 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) –66% (R), 72% (I)
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php


73 posted on 01/30/2012 12:55:55 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

The Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states 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 Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.

With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

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.

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.

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.


74 posted on 01/30/2012 1:01:12 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

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 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 primaries, in 2012 will not reach out to about 76% 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.

More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters.

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

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).


75 posted on 01/30/2012 1:03:02 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (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, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

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%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and enacted by three jurisdictions.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored.

Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections— NH, NM, and NV. These three states contain only 14 (8%) of the 22 medium-lowest population states’ total 166 electoral votes.


76 posted on 01/30/2012 1:05:15 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: magellan

Dividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race was competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there have been only 55 “battleground” districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 2/3rds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

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.


77 posted on 01/30/2012 1:08:23 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PressurePoint

The Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways. The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and preserves state control of elections.


78 posted on 01/30/2012 1:11:04 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The bill says: “Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:

“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”

The important point is that an interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.


79 posted on 01/30/2012 1:13:06 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party’s dedicated activists.

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy.

With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.


80 posted on 01/30/2012 1:15:57 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing; RockinRight; SkyDancer; Puppage; Baynative; TEXOKIE; Sacajaweau; ...

Just a quick heads up all. Poster mvymvy is nothing but a pro popular vote troll reading from a script.

Want proof, look at his posting history. Want more proof, grab a key phrase out of one of his pre written responses and put it in a search engine and look at how many times its been posted elsewhere. We have our very own Ellie Light.


81 posted on 01/30/2012 2:35:47 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Little spam monkey mvymvy is obviously another Kossack.


82 posted on 01/30/2012 2:48:02 PM PST by Track9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Track9

A couple of us have been onto him for a while.


83 posted on 01/30/2012 2:53:31 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: thouworm; Flotsam_Jetsome; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Fred Thompson Promotes ‘National Popular Vote’ Initiative In Harrisburg,

Article, then # 32 (soros), # 35 (graphic).

Thanks, thouworm.

bbl

84 posted on 01/30/2012 3:02:19 PM PST by LucyT ( NB. ~ Pakistan was NOT on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981. ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Time for a few Rumsfeld lightning bolts. Then send in the Norwegian cats.


85 posted on 01/30/2012 3:03:50 PM PST by Track9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

I don’t understand it either.


86 posted on 01/30/2012 3:09:25 PM PST by Fledermaus (I can't fiddle so I'll just open a cold beer as I watch America burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: olezip

The irony of Hillary supporting this stupid idea is that if it was in place in 1992 her husband would not have won the WH.


87 posted on 01/30/2012 3:13:17 PM PST by Fledermaus (I can't fiddle so I'll just open a cold beer as I watch America burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

I disagree. The constitution has a roadmap for what happens if the EC doesn’t elect the president.

The states where most of the voter fraud already takes place is mostly large population states and the fraud isn’t just for the president...it’s epidemic for the libs to hold onto state and local power also.

A national vote with your idea would always force a two round race. And once it’s always the GOP and Dem getting the top two places the courts would be used to turn it, eventually, into a more parlimentary style election.

If that ever happens conservatives will get shoved aside when left, far left, crazy left, loony left, insane left, etc. create a coalition government (the VP coming from a smaller third party, etc.) with Congress falling in line.


88 posted on 01/30/2012 3:21:20 PM PST by Fledermaus (I can't fiddle so I'll just open a cold beer as I watch America burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Well, this is one of those times I just have to say “I told you so.”

Warned everyone about John McCain’s good buddy Fred Thompson a long time ago.


89 posted on 01/30/2012 3:27:55 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Conservatives said: 'Give us the lesser of two evils'! The GOP establishment said 'no.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvymvy
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

That's called direct democracy.. and in case you're totally unschooled, which it seems you are in democratic theory (Aristotle), it leads to totalitarianism. That's why the Founding Father's (those who you work to subvert) created a Constitutional Republic. And it's the reason you are still free to peddle your nonsense. The folks here on Free Republic want to preserve our magnificent heritage not replace it with some hair brained fad.

90 posted on 01/30/2012 3:29:02 PM PST by Track9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
The Electoral College is the last thing between us and the Red Death.

Who's got an address for this bozo?

He's one of the last ones I would have suspected would lurch over to the dark side.

Leni

91 posted on 01/30/2012 3:31:39 PM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvymvy

Completely unworkable and mistaken.

Every vote would not count. All the left would have to do is increase turnout (or cheating) in the most populous left wing states like CA, NY, IL, etc.

Then they just have to go into certain cities in “red states” like TX (pad Houston, Austin and Dallas), or GA (increase voters in Atlanta) and the popular vote will always go to the left.


92 posted on 01/30/2012 3:31:59 PM PST by Fledermaus (I can't fiddle so I'll just open a cold beer as I watch America burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Yup. I went with Duncan Hunter last time around.


93 posted on 01/30/2012 3:32:51 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

OH MY!


94 posted on 01/30/2012 3:34:09 PM PST by Spunky (Sarah Palin on Polls "Poles are for Strippers and Cross Country Skiers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Scary map. We need to educate people in the Constitution.


95 posted on 01/30/2012 3:36:00 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Track9

Yep, direct democracy = mob rule. It is one of the most insidious forms of government ever invented. It is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.


96 posted on 01/30/2012 3:39:59 PM PST by Marathoner (In the 80s we had Reagan, Johnny Cash and Bob Hope. Now we have Obama, no cash and no hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: mvymvy

You are discounting the aggregate of population size. That 19% you lament is only a small percentage of the whole but a large segement of actual votes.

That 19% in the states like NY, CA, IL, PA, etc. have more total votes that dozens of states combined. They alone can wipe out the entire votes in states even like mine - TN.

If they get enough in Houston, Austin, and Dallas to pad their national total they don’t need to win Texas as a state persay.

And almost all medium to large cities and counties even in red states lean to the Dems. Nashville, Memphis, Little Rock, Birmingham, New Orleans, Phoenix, Tuscon, Las Vegas, St. Louis, etc.

Why campaign accross a red state when all you need is to increase turnout in these cities to, again, pad your national vote total enough to win. No need to win states.


97 posted on 01/30/2012 3:40:59 PM PST by Fledermaus (I can't fiddle so I'll just open a cold beer as I watch America burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
We need to educate people in the Constitution.

Michigan state rep Dave Agema is pushing for exactly that as a requirement along with the federalist papers and other important documents in Michigan schools. The regressives are enraged by it.
98 posted on 01/30/2012 3:54:34 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Real smart. That’s all we need, all the illegals in all the easy driver license states voting. WTF is wrong with these people?


99 posted on 01/30/2012 3:58:10 PM PST by stevio (God, guns, guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Fred .... shut up and sing

.

100 posted on 01/30/2012 5:16:41 PM PST by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-166 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson