E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPlaying their formal role in the ritual of choosing the president, electors in each state are gathering in their state capitols Monday to cast their votes.
Toby Talbot / AP
Members of Vermont's electoral college take their oath of office on Monday, Dec. 17, 2012 in Montpelier, Vt.
On Election Day voters in all 50 states picked a slate of electors, loyalists chosen by the leaders of the respective parties.
On Monday those party-chosen electors play their brief but crucial part in the process of selecting the man who’ll serve as president for four years.
Based on the results of the balloting on Nov. 6, President Barack Obama won 332 electoral votes and Republican Mitt Romney won 206. A total of 270 electoral votes are required to win the presidency.
There are 538 electors in all, with each state getting a total equal to its number of House members and its two senators. Hawaii, for instance, has four electors, while Texas has 38.
The electors from all 50 states and the District of Columbia never meet in one place at the same time. The Framers of the Constitution feared that if the electors met in one place, they’d be vulnerable to "cabal, intrigue and corruption," as Alexander Hamilton put it.
Since the first election in 1789, only 11 electors have voted for a candidate other than the one to whom they were pledged. In 2004, for example, a Minnesota elector who was pledged to vote for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry instead voted for Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards.
All but two states, Nebraska and Maine, use a winner-take-all system in which the person getting the most popular votes gets all of the state’s electoral votes.
In October, Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., introduced a constitutional amendment that would award 29 bonus electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote.
“The election for president should be an election for the whole country, not just the swing states,” Israel said, adding that “we would be better served in the future if presidential candidates had an incentive to campaign in places like New York and Texas as well as swing states like New Hampshire and Iowa. By giving a bonus vote of 29 electoral votes, swing states would remain important, but states like New York would have a meaningful voice too.”
Israel said he chose 29 as the bonus number since it is big enough to break an electoral vote tie, but not enough to undermine the influence of small swing states in the electoral vote tally.
In Pennsylvania, Republican state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi plans to introduce legislation to award Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes proportionately to the popular vote in the state, rather than by using the winner-take-all system. “This advantage of this system is clear: It much more accurately reflects the will of the voters in our state,” Pileggi said.
In 2004 Democrats in Colorado proposed a ballot initiative that would have scrapped the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes and changed to proportional allocation, but Colorado voters rejected it.
Leave a Comment:
...and The Winner is..... Barack Obama
Yes.... America is still the Best Hope ... of the world.
P.S.: Kudos to American voters...the greatest voters in the world.
Stick to the Topic of the Article that you apparently know nothing about based on your posts.
It was due to the Electoral College that President Bush (43) ended up with a Second Term.
The Electoral College must be eliminated as the Electoral College's Purpose is Defeated by Gerrymandering, Bought Votes, etc..
The Original Purpose of the Electoral College was actually NOT the lame excuse given to the American People "Of Representing the People" (Representative Government). It was because of the Rich Elitists Founding Fathers, "The average Citizen is too ignorant to determine the Highest Offices of the Land, President and Vice President" (along with many non complementary comments and arguements made by the Founding Fathers as the US Congressional Records) as they were arguing about how to establish the Constitutional Representative Republic of America.
http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress
No, the EC was create as a balance between equal state based representation and population base representation just as the Bicameral legislature was. The president's role is to both represent and lead the american people but also to balance and negotiate between the various states. The EC was created to keep the president from pandering to populous states and ignoring sparse ones while also ensuring he also obeyed the will of the people. The apportionment of votes and the choosing of the voters was left up to the states. Many did not hold a public vote for the office of the president. In some states one voted for their state congressmen and the state legislature voted for their EC voters one by one. Then the EC voters would follow the campaign and vote for their chosen candidate. Over time the popular vote came to be the only way to choose EC voters, then it became illegal for EC voters in most states to vote against their district's popuar vote, and then many states voted to become all or nothing rather than proportionally allotted. It is the all or nothing allocation of EC votes that makes the EC not representative of the American people, not the institution of the EC itself. A return to proportional allocation is needed (state wide, not district based and thus not subject to questionable district division practices) to make America's votes match both the will of the people and the good of the states.
Another sad day in America's history!
david,
Please educate yourself on the electoral college. Since the electoral college is based on statewide results, gerrymandering has no effect on the electoral college. Also, the EC was part of the result of a compromise between small states and large states. The small states were afraid the large states would dominate the Federal Government. That is why each state gets two Senators regardless of population. And the EC was designed so that each state would vote for president not the individual citizens.
Matthew,
Some Republican controlled states have tried making gerrymandering an issue (PA is/was trying) where the statewide loser of the popular vote would get the majority of the electoral votes by issuing them on a precinct winner basis. Pulling all the Democratic voters into just a few districts and using sparsely populated Republican districts in the rest would give a Republican loser with 33% of the total vote a win with 75% of the electoral votes.
Keith,
Some states may be looking into making that change but as of now only two states do, Nebraska and Maine. And Nebraska is a red state where proportional voting helped Obama in 2008. Also, if you bothered reading the article you would see that in 2004 a Democrat in Colorado wanted to change Colorado to proportional voting. Colorado voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. A proportional voting plan would have helped the Democrats. Currently gerrymandered districts have no affect on the EC.
Mitt, Thank you for playing in the supporting role...you also won something...an oscar for a supporting role in a drama of a presidential election.
As a Pennsylvanian I would ask that Senator Pileggi not introduce proportionality to PA's election process. I believe Mr. Pileggi's motives are driven by trying to do through the state legislature what the GOP could not do at the ballot box. If we are to move to a direct election process for national offices, let that be a constitutional amendment - not the random thinking of local officials kept in control through the power of gerrymandering.
The Electoral College must be eliminated, if not eliminated then Proportionality is as close as you are going to get as actual Democracy.
What's the matter Steve Lynch-800439 you don't believe in Democracy.
What really needs to be done is ONLY the Popular Votes determine the US President and Vice President, NOT a bunch of Representatives that can later (December January) override the Votes of Voters after the Voters have Voted (November December).
Once again the example: The Electoral College is how President Bush (43) ended up with a Second Term.
eliminated...no...if it ain't broke, don't fix it. From the bottom of the heart...all Americans are conservative..don't easily change things.
Folks, please remember, the US is NOT a direct democracy, never has been. We are a Republic with the democratically elected representatives. All part of the checks and balances to prevent mob rule, no matter who the mob is at any point in history. And the mob changes over time, always does.
The election of 1888 gives the best reason why the popular vote should NOT be used to elect the President. In that election, Grover Cleveland won the popular, but lost the Electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison. The reason he won the popular vote is tied entiiely to one key decision on a cotton tariff bill that resulted of him winning 85+% of the vote in Florida and Georgia, whereas the popular vote was pretty much split evenly in the nation as a whole. But the one cotton tariff referendum was extraordinarily popular in the deep South.
Today, a vote based purely on the popular vote would eventually find certain issues where the rural vs urban vote is devicive in a way that makes the entire election a single issue referundum. And a single issue referendum to elect the Leader of the Free World is equally likely to be disastrous for one political persuasion as the other.
by the way, Grover Cleveland won the popular vote all three times he ran for President. but he won the electoral college only the first time and the third time.
A survey of Pennsylvania voters 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 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. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system 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. 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 among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
Republicans want to split electoral votes in blue states......but not red states.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted 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, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 14 presidential elections
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. In 2008, 98% of the campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,453 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
Do you sell shoes too? I bought a hundred pair of shoes at the auction for practically nothing. They are all paired in style but no two like shoes are the same size. Betcha could take them off my hands. I'll split the profit with you. Speaking of hands, you see I got a great deal on gloves the week before with the same problem and ..........
An electoral landslide and the reichwing still refuses to concede defeat...lmao
The President won both teh electorial and popular vote so the electorial college, really doesn't make a difference this time.
The most important consequence of state winner-take-all statutes for awarding Electoral College votes, is that presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the concerns of voters in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.
During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.
In a surprise upset they name Sarah Palin the next president of the United States. They were quoted as saying that if we are going to go over the cliff anyway we might as well commit suicide.
*that is a joke btw*
I know how dumb some of the people here are.
And, in another attempt to water down the urban and minority votes, states like Ohio, are thinking about switching to a system that the winner of the popular vote in each othat state's congressional districts, gets an electoral college vote for each of those districts, so this could easily mean that the winner of the state wide popular vote does not necessarily win all the electoral college points for that state...it also means that republicans will always do better.
Apparently it's not just a Republican idea.
Changing to a proportional system isn't necessarily the same as awarding the votes on an district basis. They're really two different ideas.
.
I would like to see that only the popular vote is counted. In my state, the electoral votes went for the other guy, so basically, my vote did not count. Grouping votes by EC and by State is not good. It should be grouped only by how the people of the US voted, not how the States voted. That way if I live in Delaware, my vote counts as 1 vote, if I live in Texas, my vote counts as 1 vote. Anything else is artificial.
"I would like to see that only the popular vote is counted."
Did you say that in 2000?
A survey of Delaware voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 79% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
By age, support was 71% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 77% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 81% among women and 69% among men.
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. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system 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. 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 among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has passed the Delaware House of Representatives in 2009 and 2011. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
Yes, the advantage is quite clear: It's another way for Republicans to steal elections. Unless Republican states like Texas and Mississippi also award electoral votes proportionately to the popular vote, then none of them should be allowed to do so.
Did you happen to read the whole article?
So apparently it isn't just Republicans that want to "steal" elections.
The facts are,
In 2012,
Republicans want to split electoral votes in blue states......but not red states.
Democrats have not proposed splitting electoral votes in any state.
Working
Oh -- so NoBamma -- you were working. So that means you didn't have time to vote? Strange -- I work and I found time to vote. And -- you had plenty of time to assure us, without any reservations, that Preaident Obama would be a one term President?? Were you not working then or what?
And six years earlier. every Democrat was convinced Bush would be a one-term president.
Wonder if there are any out there -- I mean really out there -- who think the results might be different from those of the first Tuesday in November?
You seem to be forgetting one important fact abuot the Electors, this election, HOW MANY OF THEM WERE "OF A MIND AND ABILITY TO RIGHTLY PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE"?? (As Any Grand Jury Would Determine), legal applicants or officeholders, since the 1215 Magna Carta, et. seq. (How many had been advocating proper grand jury function be restored?)...NONE...MAKING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DYSFUNCTIONED/UNCERTIFIABLE (IN VIOLATION OF THE SUCCESSION ACT), UNTIL THE UNIFICATION SCIENCE UPGRADES ARE IMPLEMENTED.....Why it's so important to "Support and Defend The Constitution of the U.S." (proper grand jury function, since article 18 of the still-due 1776 Declaration of Independence, under the last articles of the 1777 Articles of Confedration and 1787 U.S. Constitution)...THEY DON'T HAVE "THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANY REPRESENTATIVE", OTHERWISE, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO HOLD THE OFFICE. THIS IS WHY THE VOTES ARE REQUIRED TO BE "CERTIFIED" BEFORE THEY COUNT (ESPECIALLY IN STATES WHERE ELECTORS' VOTES ARE TIED TO POPULAR VOTES) AND THIS CANNOT OCCUR UNTIL ALL QUESTIONING JURY TRIALS ARE CONCLUDED (WHICH REQUIRES PROPER GRAND JURY FUNCTION)..WE HAVE 700,000+ VOTES/SIGNATURES FROM EVERY STATE IN THE COUNTRY (AND PETITIONS AND PRESENTMENTS IN SEVERAL COURTS)....THE VOTES CAN'T BE CERTIFIED UNTIL THESE JURY TRIALS ARE CONCLUDED AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT DOESN'T QUALIFY TO HOLD OFFICE, OTHERWISE....
______________________
______________________
PUT THE "REAL CHRIST" IN YOUR CHRISTMAS FOR THE FIRST TIME, THIS
YEAR.....SIGN THE PETITIONS FOR PROPER GRAND JURY FUNCTION THAT
GUARANTEE TO ELIMINATE THE DEFICIT*, NOW!!! (*WITH THE ALREADY
PRESENTED "UNIFICATION SCIENCE UPGRADES" THAT WOULD'VE ALREADY
PREVENTED THE TRILLON+ IN "FOREIGN DEBT", ALONE)
______________
______________
______________
PUT THE REAL CHRIST IN YOUR CHRISTMAS FOR THE 1ST TIME (THE 12
DISCIPLES THAT "PROPERLY-FUNCTIONING GRAND JURIES" REPRESENT): AND BE
ENTERED TO "WIN A $1,000,000+ GLORY MANSION" FOR GETTING OTHERS TO DO
SO, BY SIGNING THE PETITION (S), THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!
{Sign/Vote At : : & http//wh.gov/RN7h }
ALREADY ENOUGH SIGNATURES/VOTES FOR A"TRUE BILL" AND "INDICTMENT" WITH
THE PROPER GRAND JURY FUNCTION OUR TAXES PAY FOR!!!
No New Taxes (and Voluntarily, No Taxes At All For Those Who Choose To
Do So, After Signing the Petition (s) Detailed Below and Joining the
"700,000 Club"--700K Consolidated Signatures/Votes and Counting),
Until All of Our Grand Juries Are Functioning Properly, As The Taxes
We've Already Paid and Are Already Being Billed For Legally Pay For
Now (as the Dysfunction of These Juries is What's Caused the Lootings
and Preventably-Expanded Crime and Debt Levels,
the Cause of the Deficits)!!! Deficits the Unification Science
Upgrades (to "U.S. Grade" or "Platinum Standard" would've already
eliminated, whether via Congressional Proper Function/Implementation
or Local Grand Jury Proper Function/Implementation)!!!
The choices are simple and straight-forward:
Do you support eliminating the deficit that's producing a trillion+ in
preventable interest a year and some reported 20,000+ preventable
deaths a day?
Do you support Unification Science Upgrades that GUARANTEE to prevent
this trillion+ a year in interest alone from being paid to foreign
powers that will "bomb" us with them upon our derfault upon the
illegal-loans'-deficit (as Japan did in WWII--Pearl Harbor, after
FDR's 1935 Default)?
Do you oppose cutting already paid for benefits that will increase
this preventable death toll from some 20,000 per day (and increase the
real debt by 3X+)?
Can you answer the questions at www.PRLog.Org/10439874 (and at least
start the Unification Science Upgraded Training Progams) and be the
only ones who qualify to even apply for government office (being "of a
mind and abiliy to rightly perfrom the duties of the office", the
reprovable qualifications to apply, much less hold/occupy office,
since the 1215 Magna Carta, et.seq.)...the only ones who aren't creating and
expandng 3X+ the crime and debt of proper function, instead of
eliminating crime and debt as only this proper function can
accomplish?
Can you follow instructions (do it right) and eliminate crime and
debt, instead of being a "foreign powers recruit within our borders"
that can only pretend someone else's materials are their own
(counterfeit) and increase crime and debt by 3X+ (producing War Crime
Levels in th streets, Civil War, and the World War that follows)?
If you answered yes to all of these, join the "700,000 And Counting
Club" (By Signing the White House Petition-s Below) and start working on
the only real recovery possible, for the first time, today..."Come
Back Home To America".....
REPASS THE STILL-DUE 1776 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: IT'S STILL THE ONLY LEGAL-SECESSION {www.Repass1776Declaration.Blogspot.com} AND A CRIME TO FAIL TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND!!! (In Fact, Opposition To This
1st Consitution's The Reason For The Bogus-Elections and the Deficit)..BE SURE
and Tell All Your Friends To Sign The Only Legal Secession Petition, Today!!!
{At ; ; }
(formerly, ENOUGH SIGNATURS/VOTES FOR A "TRUE BILL" AND "GRAND JUY INDICTMENT") ADD YOUR NAME TO THE "FOUNDING FATHERS LIST", NOW (From The "Repass the
STILL-DUE 1776 Declaration of Independence" Campaign)!!! All else is
prinicpalship to the theft of a trillion+ a year in U.S. Dollars (that's "arming our enemies")!!! VOTE AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE ONLY REAL ELIMINATION OF THE DEFICIT, LOWERING OF CRIME RATES, AND PLATINUM STANARDIZING OF THE U.S. DOLLAR!!! (THE REST IS 3X+ CRIME AND DEBT EXPANSION)..
RCCFM: Always(c):
Dr. Eric
Who's Who In America Physician (Ph.D. & Public Health)
www.Repass1776Delcaration.Blogspot.com
USRecovery@Gmail.com
925-350-3852 (Messages: Schedule Interviews)
MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TODAY (Just Go Online and Make a Transfer Or Go To
Your Bank And Do So, Or Any Business With a Credit Card Terminal
Today):{INFORM US OF ANYONE TELLING YOU OTHERWISE}
Visa# 4736 9130 0085 6507 ($5000 per day, maximum):Deficit Elimination Fund
(Dr. CED, U.S. Recovery--Ind.Est.)
Visa# 4736 9130 0062 6397 ($5000 per day, maximum): Legal Defense Fund (CD,
U.S. Recovery--Ind.Est.)
Visa# 4736 9130 0048 4524 ($5000 per day, maximum): Platinum Standard The
Dollar Fund (Dr.CED, U.S. Recovery--Ind.Est)
*Those Contributing $100 (or more) will be given a "free" copy of the
book with the 9+ Unification Science Upgrades in the appendix that the
"Deficit CANNOT Be Eliminated Without"!!!
**Those getting another to sign these Petitions will be "ENTERED TO
WIN A $1,000,000+ PLATINM ECONOMIC RECOVERY MANSION PACKAGE"
(3-Story,3-Acre-Parcels with a Competition-Obsoleting, Unification
Science Upgraded, "U.S. Grade or Platinum Standard" Business
Included); GET YOURS FOR CHRISTMAS!!!
No value? Inflammatory? Advertising? Is there an option for crazy-spam?
Scary is more like it, Capt.
Those Petitions (Obstructed If censored) are at :
: : and
Don't Let Your White House and Trillions In Taxes Be Stolen, This Time!!!
Is this petition to get you to go back on your meds? I'm still not going to sign it. But really, you should consider getting back on the medication. I know you don't like the way it makes you feel, but when you stop taking it you write stuff like that.
3 of the 11 electors from AZ said they didn't t think Obama was qualified to be president because of his BIRTH! 3 BIRTHERS out of 11!
Can we just trade AZ to Mexico for a good case of booze? Heck, even a cheap case of booze! It's not worth anything more than that!
I think electoral votes should be proportional everywhere, like they are in Maine and Nebraska:
1. The electoral vote would almost always track the popular vote, since House seats are divided by population.
2. Although the Senate electoral votes would be assigned by the statewide vote, the President and the House Majority would almost always be aligned. The President and the House couldn't blame each other and would therefore be more likely to cooperate.
3. Vote fraud becomes a less valuable tool in a national election, because in the few geographic areas where there is concentrated voting fraud, it only impacts three electoral votes at most.
I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but there have been extremely few examples of the electoral vote and the popular vote not aligning anyway under the current system. Your point 2 was kinda invalidated in just this last election (as well as many others), since the popular vote put in the democratic president but a republican house (due to gerrymandered house districts). Your point 3 only makes sense if you believe it is easier to commit large fraud in few areas than minor fraud in many areas, a contention which may or may not be true.
Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.
A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***
A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
&&&&
Republicans want to split electoral votes in blue states......but not red states.
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. Nationwide, there have been only 55 "battleground" districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
Wow Robme lost bye a 126 votes,mmloooooooser
...or Obama barely won 51% to 47% of the popular vote. And that 51% is 51% of people that actually voted. Keep patting yourself on the back. There's many, many more people in the US that did not vote for Obama than did vote for him. By all means keep antagonizing them and "haha-ing" in their faces. I'm looking forward to the back lash and listening to the Libby's whine and cry.
Haha. Look at it this way, argueforsport, the election of Obama was a victory for Romney supporters too. Just because they are too stupid to realize how much worse the country would be if their idiotic side had won, doesn't mean they aren't still better off.
"I'm looking forward to the back lash and listening to the Libby's whine and cry."
We've already seen the cons whine and cry -- for the last 36 years. They whined about cried Carter from 1976 to 1992, they whined and cried about Clinton from 1992 to 2008 and they've been whining and crying about Obama since 2008. About the only thing cons do well is whine and cry.
I hope you don't have any kids or do you teach them to taunt the losing team as well.
Thats's true of any election. Yes, many people didn't vote for Obama. But, even MORE didn't vote for Romney. So, I don't know what point that you're trying to make.
Nice to see mitt cry after he lost,,,
Another election between dumb and dumber and nothing we should be proud of.
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, 'merely a fool'. It is far less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their President.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency."
No gringo -- the real danger to American is people like you who have no faith in the very foundation of our entire governmental philosophy --- the will of the people. The American people are not fools. In the ling run, we get it right.
.....said the support of the drunken little bush, generating waves of thunderous laughter throughout news vine.
So how many of you who are calling for either the elimination or reform of the electoral college were saying this after the 2000 election? Remember the 2000 election -- the one where Al Gore won the Popular vote but lost the election?
Well if you actually read the comments by mvymvy, the main person spamming this board with crap about the NPV, you would see that he is complaining that "Republicans want to split electoral votes in blue states......but not red states." Or david-475776 is complaining about the EC because that allowed Bush to win in 2000. Seriously, did you bother reading the comments or do you just assume that because you Democrats always try to change the rules after the fact that Republicans do the same?
The facts are,
In 2012,
Republicans want to split electoral votes in blue states......but not red states.
Democrats have not proposed splitting electoral votes in any state.
I love it! For all the bazillions that Republicans and the NRA and ALEC and Koch Bros. and Norquist spent, I bet the count in the electoral college will once again show them all to be losers!! The VOTERS spoke louder than money!! So let's do it again now, voters.....force meaningful, enforceable gun control laws so none of our relatives has to see this carnage or be the victim of gun violence ever again!! Force Congress to DO something that will HELP citizens, not just emass funds to defeat candidates who do nothing to protect us!! We can do it if we vote for the right candidates, even at local levels. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time till the next mass murder.
Oh please both sides spent well over $1 billion. This wasn't some victory of the people over the moneyed interests. They both had plenty of moneyed backers.
It does warm my heart to see that "the people" who were held in contempt by the Billionaires and their ilk trying to buy our vote lost billions -and the vote! Yea us!!!
Obvious partisan machinations by individual states should add support for the National Popular Vote movement. If the party in control in each state is tempted every 2, 4, or 10 years (post-census) to consider rewriting election laws and redistrict with an eye to the likely politically beneficial effects for their party in the next presidential election, then the National Popular Vote system, in which all voters across the country are guaranteed to be politically relevant and treated equally, looks better and better.
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. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system 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. 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 among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc