tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post6690776257990741977..comments2024-03-28T17:11:08.234-05:00Comments on Bayou Renaissance Man: "National Popular Vote" - another way to bypass the ConstitutionPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-69266325001302846932010-08-03T15:52:33.090-05:002010-08-03T15:52:33.090-05:00IMHO:
Although I agree that NPV is a bad idea, be...IMHO:<br /><br />Although I agree that NPV is a bad idea, because it intentionally defeats an important set of checks and balances that prevents the concentration of the power to elect the president, we have bigger problems than the precise degree to which our democracy has become a degenerate exercise in majoritarianism.<br /><br />The problem is that it IS a degenerate exercise in majoritarianism. <br /><br />To whit:<br /><br />A) the office of the president now wields extraordinary powers well beyond those it was ever intended to wield.<br /><br />B) The majority of the population sees this as a feature, not a bug.<br /><br />C) The majority of the population doesn't understand phrases like "degenerate exercises of majoritarianism".<br /><br />Those of us who have studied history are doomed to watch everyone else repeat it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-71573599389716582102010-08-02T09:58:32.921-05:002010-08-02T09:58:32.921-05:00The 11 largest states have 56% of the population. ...The 11 largest states have 56% of the population. The 11 largest states are also almost dead evenly split as far as political alliance. So, that's roughly 28% to each candidate from focusing on those states... Takes quite a bit more than that to be elected President. All that is happening now is 15 swing states decide the election, and in reality just 4 (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida). Those four states got 57% of all campaign visits and 55% of all ad spending last election. That is the unbalanced system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-79192634958175034332010-07-29T13:49:01.974-05:002010-07-29T13:49:01.974-05:00if Candidate X gets big majorities in a few States...<i>if Candidate X gets big majorities in a few States with large populations, he might be able to lose 30 or more of the smaller states, and still win election, because the large vote tallies of the populous states would overwhelm the smaller numbers involved in other states</i><br /><br />California, New York, Illinois, and Texas.<br /><br />(By the way, I got the same spam-treatment when I ran an item on this several months ago. Californicate-based spammer.)Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-20211498315997786802010-07-28T20:23:54.431-05:002010-07-28T20:23:54.431-05:00The present electorial college is in place to prev...The present electorial college is in place to prevent the more populace states from having an undue influence on the elections. If this goes through, the only places that the presidential candidates will visit are the states like kalifornia and some of the other states. if the electorial college system is removed, it will be one step closer to mob rule.MrGarabaldihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05768774166065615995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-58473097454589345252010-07-28T14:52:15.077-05:002010-07-28T14:52:15.077-05:00Looks like a pretty big barrage from the NPV folks...Looks like a pretty big barrage from the NPV folks. I assume all those "anonymous" comments are from them because who else has all those numbers and data at their fingertips? You must have hit a nerve. <br /><br />When will people ever learn that art of writing laws is in understanding and addressing the unintended consequence? Just as making (US) senators elected by the general population and not selected by the states has led to destruction of states' rights, this will lead to something. I don't quite know what...<br /><br />The only thing this law can possibly do is make small states less relevant and allow the president to declare more of a mandate. (What's the quote? "This chair is my mandate"??) <br /><br />If you want to make the races more "fair" you need to address the primary processes. Why is it that Iowa and New Hampshire basically set the agenda? If those people choose an utter zero to run for the top job, like last time, the states that come later can have a real problem fixing it. <br /><br />I think it's always wise to address this sort of single issue advocacy by asking "What are you trying to fix? Are you sure it's the best way? What will it cost? What will not doing it cost?" I don't really see a problem here, so I'm skeptical of why we'd want it fixed.SiGraybeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-36336057276607245652010-07-28T14:42:27.628-05:002010-07-28T14:42:27.628-05:00I could understand wanting each state to divide it...I could understand wanting each state to divide its votes proportionally based on the vote in that state to reflect the popular vote. Basing it on the national vote is idiotic IMO. <br /><br />You could have 100% of the votes for a candidate, yet the electoral votes would go to the other guy if he won in the other states. It makes no sense to me to allow your state's electoral votes to be determined by anything other than the popular vote in your state.<br /><br />MechAg94Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-49829535923645854802010-07-28T12:17:11.372-05:002010-07-28T12:17:11.372-05:00I think the plan is Constitutional simply b/c the ...I think the plan is Constitutional simply b/c the states have full control over how the appoint the Electors. <br /><br />However I do think it is a horrible idea. Frankly, I'd rather us not waste resources on elections for President and have the state legislatures just appoint electors the way they did at the beginning of the Republic. This has the added benefit of making sure people take a good look at who they elect to state government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-89090469143646334052010-07-28T12:01:59.969-05:002010-07-28T12:01:59.969-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-15311286880399944852010-07-28T12:00:58.481-05:002010-07-28T12:00:58.481-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-1284025733666254052010-07-28T12:00:22.889-05:002010-07-28T12:00:22.889-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-30565396282604140702010-07-28T11:57:53.927-05:002010-07-28T11:57:53.927-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-38613114904014099832010-07-28T11:55:05.625-05:002010-07-28T11:55:05.625-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-30733705611293621982010-07-28T11:54:07.347-05:002010-07-28T11:54:07.347-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-18609484161043113302010-07-28T11:52:53.788-05:002010-07-28T11:52:53.788-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-46906007753729053142010-07-28T11:21:42.128-05:002010-07-28T11:21:42.128-05:00You are, as usual, so right. The effort may or ma...You are, as usual, so right. The effort may or may not be Constitutional -- I am no expert on Constitutional law -- but the objective is clearly not, and is clearly an effort to subvert certain parts of the Constitution. I have to admit to be exceedingly wary of so-called direct democracy anyway -- California being the poster child for why it's a terrible idea -- and am even warier of efforts to bypass the interests of the several States.<br /><br />What a nuisance.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14377326478767097625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-59839734669367200642010-07-28T09:36:50.723-05:002010-07-28T09:36:50.723-05:00The way we elect the President has no bearing on w...The way we elect the President has no bearing on whether we are a Republic or a Democracy. We have always been a Republic not a Democracy (electing representatives to lead the government and make decisions rather than holding a vote on absolutely everything) and we will continue to be. And no, your vote isn't worth less now, since in the past there was a very good chance your vote wasn't counted at all. If you voted for the candidate that lost your state your vote meant nothing- it did not count. Under National Popular Vote, a Republican living in Massachusetts or a Democrat in Texas can still have an effect on the election of the person that will lead the country. One man one vote is strikingly not the case under the current system, and it would be under NPV.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-26933511851367208052010-07-28T08:44:42.269-05:002010-07-28T08:44:42.269-05:00There are times when I am simply amazed at the goi...There are times when I am simply amazed at the goings-on that I am not aware of. This is one of those times.<br /> <br />This "notion" is one of the most dangerous threats to the Republic that I have noticed in the last many years. There was, and in my absolutely non-humble opinion continues to be, a very good reason that this country was created as a republic and not a democracy. There were, and remain, great reasons why changing the Constitution was devised as the cumbersome, time-consuming process that it is.<br /> <br />Those that are not happy with the "usual means" of changing the country from what it was supposed to be into some progressive idealistic utopian dream will never give up in their quest to find a chink in the fortress walls, a crack of the most infinitesimal size, where they can begin the process of trying to chip away. We are, happily (as strange as that may seem to some of you), forced to be always reactionary against their schemes. While it is a massive pain in the ass and brain, it is the consequence of having staked out the moral and political high ground.<br /> <br />Other than being aware of this latest insidious attempt, and making those who occupy the seats in Congress, my state legislature, and the other state legislatures aware of our opposition to it, I'm not sure what can be done - for now. However, I am fairly certain that if such a scheme is approved that it will have a tremendous and fearful effect on the tipping of the scales that currently balance our society. We have all, individually and collectively, said that there is some as-yet undefined and un-reached point beyond which we, individually and collectively, will not proceed. For me this is pretty much the definition of that point. I know not what others may say, but as for me, no mas!<br /> <br />stay safe.<br /><br />wv = prewor. Yep! It's getting pretty close to all-out wor.skidmarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-6075786980192712242010-07-28T08:38:40.630-05:002010-07-28T08:38:40.630-05:00I agree it's a real problem, Maryland's al...I agree it's a real problem, Maryland's already passed a version of it. It feels like they threw my vote away, 1 vote out of 300,000,000 is a lot weaker than 1 in 5,700,000. Also as you pointed out the chances of fraud are far greater.TheAxehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04328271483659507053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-78238380998719451062010-07-28T07:56:57.210-05:002010-07-28T07:56:57.210-05:00Joe is correct. The intent of the Constitution wa...Joe is correct. The intent of the Constitution was to introduce as many steps as possible to prevent an out theft of an election. Secondly, it was to balance the rights of the larger more populous states against the rights of the smaller states. I'm not so sure that popular election of senators was such a good idea. <br /><br />As we are finding, without the counterbalances, all power soon shifts to a colossal federal government unable to do more than vacuum our wallets for little actual achievement. <br /><br />In this case, the State of Massachusetts is legislating the ability to vote "present" on presidential elections.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-75158790859130229602010-07-28T07:10:14.139-05:002010-07-28T07:10:14.139-05:00Without perusing their literature, it seems perfec...Without perusing their literature, it seems perfectly constitutional to me. The Constitution merely says <br /><br /><i>"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors..."</i><br /><br />If a state wishes to use the national popular vote, to divide their electors between all x candidates, give them all to the winner of their local popular vote, or base the selection on the phase of the moon, it's their choice. Note that nothing in the Constitution says that individual states even need a popular election at all. If the legislature so directs, they could have a lottery or allow a groundhog to select them.<br /><br />Now, I'm definitely NOT a fan of national popular election of the President. It's already enough of a popularity contest now, but at least the candidates deign to visit the smaller states, which would likely not happen with a NPV. Of course, I'm enough of a political-Luddite that I oppose the popular election of Senators, too.joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14981428927321701616noreply@blogger.com