Tea Party Patriots of Lackawanna County, PA.
Current presidential election system does not work well
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all 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. The reason for this is the
state-by-state winner-take-all rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution,
but now used 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 candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their
voters. 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). 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states
(with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. 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.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate
who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate
can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred
in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President
Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.
Views: 24
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by s e on
-
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%.
Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.
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 directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.
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 current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) were enacted after the Constitution was written, and are now used by 48 of the 50 states. State-by-state winner-take-all is not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
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.
A survey of 800 Pennsylvania voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President. Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among independents. By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65. By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (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
-
Permalink Reply by Laureen on
-
By enacting a "national voter take all" Bill you would be destroying our Republic. Please refer to the video on our Home Page. There is a very valid reason we use the Electoral College. That is what makes us a "Republic" and NOT a "Democracy".
A Republic is guided by the rule of law, NOT feelings on whether or not WE feel something is "fair". The word in itself is subjective. What I think is fair you may not, and visa versa.
Our Constitution is NOT a "living document" as the Progressives would have you believe. Please refer to the video on the Home page and then let me know if you have any further questions. But as for this Patriot, I would rather keep my Republic. I don't want "majority rule" in America. I want the rule of Law to guide our way. A rule of law based on Gods Law. He is the only one I think that can actually be "fair" to anyone.
-
-
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). 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).
If a "republican" form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a "democratic" method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.
Want To Donate?
Important Info:
Follow Us On Twitter
Our You Tube Channel
CitizenJournalist
Free Pocket Constitution:
http://www.askheritage.org/Premium.aspx
PLANNING A VISIT TO DC?
Planning a visit to Washington DC as an individual or group? Staying overnight? Taking part in a DC Tea Party event?
Take advantage of Tea Party Patriots 20% discount direct booking websites shown below:
Tea Party Patriots at Savoy Suites
Tea Party Patriots at Carlyle Suites
© 2024 Created by Laureen Cummings.
Powered by
