Shrillary Rotten Clinton has been pushing this for about 7-8 years.
It's simple: instead of that silly old Electoral College thing we have now, where "winner takes all" E.C. votes from a State.....
....the "NPV" method will allow States to band together...
...an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.... (wiki)
Some Michigan (D) leggie introduced a bill to put Michigan into that bunch.
Why would the Democrat Party be pushing this? Here's a part of it:
...The Immigration Reform Law Institute said that from 2012 to 2016 there
were "39 million instances where names and Social Security numbers on
W-2 tax forms did not match the corresponding Social Security records."...
Same reason they will fight The Wall tooth and nail, and why they prefer No Borders.
I have never heard or seen Clinton endorse the National Popular Vote bill.
ReplyDeleteThe bill is 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
Senator Dave Hildenbrand (Republican) introduced it in the Michigan Senate.
Representative Tim Kelly (Republican) introduced it in the Michigan House.
Federal law prohibits aliens from voting for President. 18 United States Code section 611 states:
ReplyDelete“It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives …”
Tom Tancredo (R-CO) supports the National Popular Vote bill - "it is harder to mobilize massive voter fraud on the national level without getting caught, than it is to do so in a few key states . . . The National Popular Vote make [voter fraud] a smaller [problem]."
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution mandates the U.S. Census count every resident in the United States.
The current system gives "illegal immigrants" a 10 vote advantage in the Electoral College for the Democrats...because they tend to live in safe Democratic states.
An election for President based on the nationwide popular vote would eliminate the Democrat’s advantage in Electoral College members arising from the uneven distribution of non-citizens.
I suggest that you google Clinton and NPV (or similar--she has agitated for "popular vote" determining Presidency for quite some time.)
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution provides that the several States determine voter-eligibility. Nice evasion, there, but not good enough.
Finally, your contention that NPV would eliminate (D) EC advantage defies the realities: both Clinton and Gore would have been President under NPV.
And Michigan Republicans are Pubbies of the Brutus variety. Another one of them has forced all of us to give up incandescent lightbulbs. So they can go straight to Hell, thanks
She has not endorsed the National Popular Vote bill.
ReplyDeleteShe is among recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Michael Dukakis (D-MA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).
States cannot determine aliens are eligible to vote.
ReplyDeleteFederal law prohibits aliens from voting for President. 18 United States Code section 611 states:
“It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives …”
Political scientists (and also Nate Silver, the well-known polling analyst) have applied the uniform-swing method to previous presidential elections. Since 1972, when the current party alignment was well underway), they find the following breakdown of partisan advantage in the Electoral College:
ReplyDelete• Republican advantage: 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2016
• Democratic advantage: 1972, 1980, 1996, 2004, 2008, 2012
Over the past twelve elections, the underlying 'bias' of the Electoral College has been to Democrats just as often as to Republicans!
Moreover, history gives no reason to expect even a short-term advantage for one party or the other. From one election to the next, the Electoral College advantage has been more likely to shift (7 times) than to stay the same (5 times).
Thus it is an error for Republicans to infer from 2000 and 2016 that they benefit from an enduring advantage built into the Electoral College system.
Jack Nagel - Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.
Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”
ReplyDelete“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”
“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”
Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview
“I would rather have a popular vote. “
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
Much as I admire what Trump has done in office--with some reservations--the last guy I will listen to regarding voting is Trump. And he gave you the reason why: it's what HE would PREFER to deal with.
ReplyDeleteSo said every demagogue ever!!
Every political philosopher in history has warned of the terrible danger of popular-majority elections. I'm not about to contradict them. And you shouldn't either.
Virtually every other election in the U.S. is won by the candidate with the most popular votes.
ReplyDeleteIn 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.
Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL).
Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”
Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill
The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote has included former Congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).
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 National Popular Vote plan would not help either party over the other.
The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson.
Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State
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."
Laura Brod who served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.
James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, who 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 who 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 was 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 who 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.
Prior to arriving at the eventual wording of section 1 of Article II, the Constitutional Convention specifically voted against a number of different methods for selecting the President, including
ReplyDelete● having state legislatures choose the President,
● having governors choose the President, and
● a national popular vote.
After these (and other) methods were debated and rejected, the Constitutional Convention decided to leave the entire matter to the states.
The National Popular Vote bill is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“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, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, 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.
In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.
The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes only became predominant by 1880 -- almost a century after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one
State winner-take-all laws were not enacted by the leading men of those states to give fair play to the will of the people
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a 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 have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.