Wednesday, January 12, 2011

HRC, George Soros, and Saul Anuzis !!?

Yup.

Bedfellows.

...This is why it is so curious that one of the leading candidates for Republican National Committee chair has fought for one of the most anti-constitutional ideas of the last half-century.

Saul Anuzis, former chair of the Michigan Republican Party, has aggressively championed the National Popular Vote movement. If you don’t know what that is, count your blessings. The National Popular Vote movement is a frontal assault on one of the most important parts of the Constitution — the method we use to elect the president.

The National Popular Vote movement would have states allocate their Electoral College votes to whichever candidate wins the nationwide popular vote. For example, South Carolina would have thrown their electoral votes in 2008 to Barack Obama even though McCain handily won the state.

For the thousandth time, I'm not a Republican and don't have a dog in this fight (although I AM partial to name-handicapped Cheeseheads.)

10 comments:

Tom Foust said...

Buy more ammo. Gun belt. K-bar.

John Foust said...

By "not a Republican", do you mean that you never bought a membership, or that you don't vote for Republicans?

Anonymous said...

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote, everywhere would be counted 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 a handful of swing states.

In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under 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) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters-- voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like Georgia and Texas. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

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). Then, 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 Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

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.

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). 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: CO-- 68%, IA --75%, MI-- 73%, MO-- 70%, NH-- 69%, NV-- 72%, NM-- 76%, NC-- 74%, OH-- 70%, PA -- 78%, VA -- 74%, and WI -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE --75%, ME -- 77%, NE -- 74%, NH --69%, NV -- 72%, NM -- 76%, RI -- 74%, VT -- 75%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR --80%, KY -- 80%, MS --77%, MO -- 70%, NC -- 74%, and VA -- 74%; and in other states polled: CA -- 70%, CT -- 74% , MA -- 73%, MN – 75%, NY -- 79%, WA -- 77%, and WV- 81%.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

Anonymous said...

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 30 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 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.

In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The winner-take-all method is not 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 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 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.

Anonymous said...

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

Alaska (3)- 78% among (Democrats), 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
Arkansas (6)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 79% (Independents).
California (55)– 76% (D), 61% (R), and 74% (I)
Colorado (9)- 79% (D), 56% (R), and 70% (I).
Connecticut (7)- 80% (D), 67% (R), and 71% others
Delaware (3)- 79% (D), 69% (R), and 76% (I)
District of Columbia (3)- 80% (D), 48% (R), and 74% of (I)
Idaho(4) - 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Florida (29)- 88% (D), 68% (R), and 76% others
Iowa (6)- 82% (D), 63% (R), and 77% others
Kentucky (8)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 70% (I)
Maine (4) - 85% (D), 70% (R), and 73% others
Massachusetts (11)- 86% (D), 54% (R), and 68% others
Michigan (16)- 78% (D), 68% (R), and 73% (I)
Minnesota (10)- 84% (D), 69% (R), and 68% others
Mississippi (6)- 79% (D), 75% (R), and 75% Others
Nebraska (5)- 79% (D), 70% (R), and 75% Others
Nevada (5)- 80% (D), 66% (R), and 68% Others
New Hampshire (4)- 80% (D), 57% (R), and 69% (I)
New Mexico (5)- 84% (D), 64% (R), and 68% (I)
New York (29) - 86% (D), 66% (R), 78% Independence Party members, 50% Conservative Party members, 100% Working Families Party members, and 7% Others
North Carolina (15)- 75% liberal (D), 78% moderate (D), 76% conservative (D), 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), and 80% (I)
Ohio (18)- 81% (D), 65% (R), and 61% Others
Oklahoma (7)- 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Oregon (7)- 82% (D), 70% (R), and 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20)- 87% (D), 68% (R), and 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4)- 86% liberal (D), 85% moderate (D), 60% conservative (D), 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), and 78% (I),
South Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
Utah (6)- 82% (D), 66% (R), and 75% others
Vermont (3)- 86% (D); 61% (R), and 74% Others
Virginia (13)- 79% liberal (D), 86% moderate (D), 79% conservative (D), 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), and 54% conservative (R), and 79% Others
Washington (12)- 88% (D), 65% (R), and 73% others
West Virginia (5)- 87% (D), 75% (R), and 73% others
Wisconsin (10)- 81% (D), 63% (R), and 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) – 77% (D), 66% (R), and 72% (I)
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php

Dad29 said...

Nothing like the Californicate Fruits/Nuts to burden a combox.

Stuff it, anony.

Anonymous said...

That's hilarious, Dad29! A well-reasoned argument is provided, and your rebuttal comes from the immortal words of Archie Bunker, whom I believe you share a number of (unflattering) similarities.

Dad29 said...

I let you post your rants, Anony.

We've been here before. The EC works very well, preventing the Coasts from running the US into the sewer.

That's why NYC and CaliNuts like the change, and why we don't.

Anonymous said...

You might be interested to know:

There actually is a Democratic partisan advantage in the least-populous states under the current winner-take-all system.

The low-population red states are redder than the low-population blue states are blue.
Specifically, the Republican popular-vote margins in the reliably Republican six low-population states were
● Alaska–64%,
● Idaho–69%,
● Montana–61%,
● North Dakota–64%,
● South Dakota–61%, and
● Wyoming–70%.

In contrast, the Democrats carried three of their reliable low-population states (Delaware, Hawaii, and Maine) with just 54% of the vote and effortlessly harvested their electoral votes. A 46%–54% margin is generally viewed as the boundary that places a state safely out of reach for the opposition during a typical presidential campaign.

In addition, the Democrats carried two more of their low-population states (Vermont and Rhode Island) with only 60% of the vote (that is, a smaller margin than any of the six reliably Republican low-population states). The District of Columbia is the only low-population jurisdiction where the Democrats regularly win presidential races with a high margin.

A large number of Republican votes were left on the table because of the high margins of victory in the six reliably Republican low-population states, compared to the relatively modest winning margins in the six regularly Democratic low-population states. Under a national popular vote in which every vote would be equal, this wastage would not occur.

● Wyoming’s 96,509-vote margin exceeded Vermont’s 62,911-vote margin.
● Alaska’s 65,812-vote margin exceeded Delaware’s 28,356-vote margin.
● North Dakota’s 85,336-vote margin exceeded Hawaii’s 37,209-vote margin.
● Montana’s 92,110-vote margin exceeded Rhode Island’s 85,753-vote margin.
● South Dakota’s 83,320-vote margin exceeded Maine’s 65,017-vote margin.
● Idaho’s 227,334-vote Republican margin exceeded the District of Columbia’s 164,869-vote margin.

If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

Similarly, there is no significant partisan advantage in favor of the Republican Party even if one considers the 25 least-populous states (i.e., those with seven or fewer electoral votes). The Republicans won 13 of the 25 least-populous states in 2008 while the Democrats won 12. The Republicans won 58 electoral votes in the 25 least-populous states while the Democrats won 57.

In 2004, 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

Anonymous said...

"That's why NYC and CaliNuts like the change, and why we don't."

You obviously failed to read the stats provided by anon, or failed to process them.