Posted on 09/29/2012 10:52:06 AM PDT by GQuagmire
WASHINGTON (AP) — When it comes to electing the president, not all votes are created equal. And chances are yours will count less than those of a select few. For example, the vote of Dave Smith in Sheridan, Wyo., counts almost 3 1/2 times as much mathematically as those of his wife's aunts in northeastern Ohio. Why? Electoral College math. A statistical analysis of the state-by-state voting-eligible population by The Associated Press shows that Wyoming has 139,000 eligible voters — those 18 and over, U.S. citizens and non-felons — for every presidential elector chosen in the state. In Ohio, it's almost 476,000 per elector, and it's nearly 478,000 in neighboring Pennsylvania. But there's mathematical weight and then there's the reality of political power in a system where the president is decided not by the national popular vote but by an 18th century political compromise: the Electoral College.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
It’s as if some people are just figuring out we are a representative republic of states and we don’t have a federalist mob-rule democracy
If we throw out the electoral college Dave’s vote could be worthless.
Those damn Founding Fathers couldn’t frame a Constitution worth shite.
Libtards still have butthurt that Al Gore’s 0.51% majority in the popular vote didn’t make him prezzydents.
Very good, Sethie. Next question: Why?
“Douglas Amy, a political science professor at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts: “This clearly violates that basic democratic principle of one person, one vote. “
....which would be a salient point if we lived in a direct democracy...but we live in a republic.
A fact clearly understood by the “political science professor” half of Doug’s brain. But the other half - the douche-bag Obama butt-kisser half - is willing to make a complete ass out of himself for no reason other than being a socialist-worshiping a$$hole.
as is should be because Dave does not live in a large, enlightened, liberal city
I imagine the person who wrote the article most likely has a college education which shows that the only thing this higher education does is to pound crap into peoples head instead of educate them.
Haven,t they heard that the states are sovereign and are supposed to regulate the united states government instead of the other way around.
A kick through the goalposts as a Point-after counts for 1 point.
A kick through the goalposts from the same distance, as a Field Goal, counts for 3 points.
Mathematical proof of the legitimacy of the Electoral College:
Because the situation which gave rise to this Constitutional provision (the possible domination of the small states by the large ones) is still present, it would be wise for the small states to recognize this and fight these reforms with all their power. Otherwise, they can count on becoming totally irrelevant in the Presidential elections.
Try to change our electoral college and I, for one, would be open to the idea of secession.
Five states banding together to counter California’s electoral vote. Something people like Hillary can’t get their heads around.
Also I wonder how the Democrats would like it if five red states controlled who would be elected president.
Hardly seems fair, does it?
I don’t know about any of that but my vote only counts .94% of a whole vote in Mississippi because of fraud and eric holder and the doj wants to keep it that way.
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College - and the DEMs will never get the 38 State Legislature votes to ratify it.
HOWEVER, 7 or 8 DEM-controlled States [including mine, MD] have passed so-called National Popular Vote [NPV] laws as an attempt to end-run the Constitution.
The NPV law awards the state's electoral votes based on the winner of the popular vote nation-wide. And, IMHO is probably unconstitutional.
The NPV law does not become operative until enough states with a combined 270 electoral votes also pass the law - so it is not in play at this time.
As constituional justification, these States [that have passed the NPV] cite the language in Article II, Section I that states:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Therefore, these States claim that they can award their electoral votes any way they want.
HOWEVER:
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that:
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).
The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).
The paragraphs [above] come from Bush v.Gore (2000), BUT the citations within the paragraphs come from landmark cases.
IMHO, the NPV grants a conditional right of a citizen within a State to vote for the electors of his/her State, BUT takes away that right based on the votes of people in OTHER States.
Thus, the EFFECT of REVERSING the popular vote within the State, the State is valuing one person's vote over that of another, denying the right of suffrage by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote, and is wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.
Therefore, if this EVER happened, I believe the Supreme Court would immediately rule the NPV law unconstitutional - and restore the electoral counts within the states.
BTW:
IF Romney were to lose in 2012, I hope that he wins the NPV - but lose the electoral count. This would show MD what an ASSININE law they passed. MD would realize that [had NPV been in effect and ruled constitutional] Romney would be President.
THEN, MD citizens will DEMAND that the MD legislature REPEAL this stupid law ...
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.