The Founders versus National Popular Vote
The American Founders designed an ingenious, state-by-state method to elect the President of the United States. Today, we call it the Electoral College. While often misunderstood, it serves to keep states in control of elections and forces candidates to draw support from across the country just to have a chance at winning the presidency.
Even the Constitution’s original critics, the Anti-Federalists, generally supported the Electoral College. This allowed Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist No. 68, to remark that “if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”
Today, the Constitution’s state-by-state election system is under attack. A group called National Popular Vote (NPV) wants to manipulate the Founders’ system to get around the difficult process of changing the Constitution. NPV lobbyists are at work in state capitals across the country, including in Jefferson City.
Part of their argument is that conservatives are disadvantaged in presidential elections. This is odd, since the founder and funders of NPV are liberals. The very impetus for NPV’s campaign was that Al Gore, because his coalition of supporters was too focused in big cities, won the popular vote but lost the presidency. Directly rebutting NPV lobbyist claims, election analyst Nate Silver has shown that Democrats do not enjoy any systemic advantage under the current system. As he writes, “There is no ‘Blue Wall’.”
The Electoral College works so well most Americans never really think about it. Because of the Electoral College, elections are contained within individual states. No presidential appointee in Washington, D.C is responsible for administering presidential elections. States can learn from other states experiences with measures like voter identification and different laws for ballot access or absentee voting.
NPV would take all those different systems and mash them together. It promises a “national vote,” but cannot deliver. Instead, it would render presidential elections subject to massive litigation and gaming by individual states. It would most likely fall to court challenges or lead to the nationalization of election administration–a goal of many NPV supporters.
Since George Washington, every presidential election has happened state-by-state. The Electoral College is a part of the constitutional fabric and the historical record of the exceptional success of the United States. Altering that fabric, especially in pursuit of short-term political advantage, would put the republic at risk.
Tea Party news on Twitter Subscribe to our Tea Party news RSS feed
Source: http://www.missouriscorecard.org/the-founders-versus-national-popular-vote/
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,602,487,245 |
| Stories: | 8,147,220 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
why precisely do we need liars, cheaters, thieves and psychopaths “federal gvt” ruling over us?? they start wars which have ended the lives of tens of millions of innocent men, women and children and wasted going on TWENTY TRILLION DOLLARS!!!
they have no concept of meeting or balancing a budget, nor do they want to,. they do not have the ability to control themselves monetarily, spending your tax dollars like a drunken sailor out on a drunken drug induced binge, with no repercussions!
WTF DO WE NEED THEM FOR??? They are creatures that grant themselves IMMUNITY for ALL of their crimes but expect the mundanes to suck it up and grovel and scrape before them, adhering to any and all asinine laws these wastes of human skin can think up!
They give lip service to freedom but in every single instance, they do as much as possible to STEAL THAT TOO!~
We are not their property, although they act as though they own us! So tell me, wtf do we need them for???
Foreign trade?? like we couldn’t figure that out on our own??
Elected officials start wars but aren’t required to fight, bleed or die in the wars they foment! They send your sons and soon your daughters to DIE for some political agenda that you’re not allowed to know about! Because well, you just aren’t smart enough to understand.. they’ll take care of that for you! Just shut up and send your children, wives, husbands, parents and siblings off to die so that the politicians can increase their STOCK HOLDINGS and PROFIT off of these peoples needless deaths!
See it’s all for PROFIT, POWER AND POLITICAL AGENDAS! Do you feel better now??
National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences. This bill does not eliminate the Electoral College
It makes every vote equal and every voter matter to the candidates. It adds up votes of all voters in each state and the candidate with the most popular votes from the states wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Now voters in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the voters of the vast majority of states are ignored.
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.
Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.
The National Popular Vote bill simply guarantees that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency. Adding up votes of all voters and winning with the most popular votes is the method that is used in virtually every other election in the country.
With the National Popular Vote bill, the popular-vote count from each state would be added up to obtain the nationwide total for each candidate.
Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are comingled and simply added together, irrespective of the fact that the electoral-vote outcome from each state was affected by differences in state policies, including voter registration, ex-felon voting, hours of voting, amount and nature of advance voting, and voter identification requirements.
Federal law requires that each state certify its popular vote count to the federal government (section 6 of Title 3 of the United States Code). The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President.
Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote compact, all of the people of the United States are impacted by the different election policies of the states. Everyone in the United States is affected by the division of electoral votes generated by each state. The procedures governing presidential elections in a closely divided battleground state (e.g., Florida and Ohio) can affect, and indeed have affected, the ultimate outcome of national elections.
that neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Federal law (the “safe harbor” provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state’s “final determination” of its presidential election returns is “conclusive”(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day). National Popular Vote is based on the same legal mechanisms and standards that have governed presidential elections since 1880.
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
The 2000 Certificate of Ascertainment (required by federal law) from the state of Florida reported 2,912,790 popular votes for George W. Bush and 2,912,253 popular vote for Al Gore, and also reported 25 electoral votes for George W. Bush and 0 electoral votes for Al Gore. That 25–0 division of the electoral votes from Florida determined the outcome of the national election just as a particular division of the popular vote from a particular state might decisively affect the national outcome in some future election under the National Popular Vote compact.
The National Popular Vote bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. The Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways. The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and retains state control of elections
With National Popular Vote, there would NOT be a presidential appointee in Washington, DC responsible for administering presidential elections.
With National Popular Vote, states can continue to learn from other states experiences with measures like voter identification and different laws for ballot access or absentee voting.
American should really think about the current electoral system.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later 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. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. 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.
In 2012, more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the then only ten competitive states.
Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
38 states were politically irrelevant.
There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.
Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.
Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.
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 15 presidential elections
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.
Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a “safe” state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a “swing” state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida’s shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states – like water issues in the west.
“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.
The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.
After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that “Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College.”
From 1932-2008 the combined popular vote for Presidential candidates added up to Democrats: 745,407,082 and Republican: 745,297,123 — a virtual tie.
Last I knew, over 90% of the contributions supporting the National Popular Vote effort have come—in about equal total amounts—from Tom Golisano, who has funded about 45% of National Popular Vote, is a pro-life, registered Republican businessman , living in Florida, and a founding member of the Independence Party of New York who ran on its ticket for governor of New York in 1994, 1998 and 2002, and John R. Koza who is a pro-choice, registered Democratic businessman residing in California. He is the originator of the National Popular Vote plan.
The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes 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).
Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)
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.”
On February 4, 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the National Popular Vote bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the National Popular Vote bill.
On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28–18 margin.
On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses Colorado (9).
A survey of Missouri voters showed 75% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote for President was 78% among Republicans, 73% among Democrats, and 73% among independents/others.
By gender, support was 79% among women and 70% among men.
By age, support was 82% among 18-29 year olds, 66% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 73% for those older than 65.
Most Americans don’t ultimately 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 equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
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 every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
NationalPopularVote
o •With National Popular Vote, elections will still be state-by-state
o
It changes nothing in the Constitution.
The bill would use the exclusive and plenary power in the Constitution given to each state to choose how to award their electors. The bill would replace state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.
The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.
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.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.
The bottom line is that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.
Alexander Hamilton’s statement in Federalist No. 68 saying that the Electoral College is “excellent” is frequently quoted out-of-context in order to suggest that Hamilton (and perhaps the whole Founding Generation) would have favored our current system of electing the President. In fact, Hamilton’s statement does not refer to the current state-by-state winner-take-all system but instead, to the Founders’ never-achieved vision of a “judicious” and “deliberative” Electoral College.
Hamilton’s statement that the Electoral College is “excellent” was made in the Federalist Papers during the debate on ratification of the U.S. Constitution—that is, before Hamilton or anyone else could see how the Electoral College would operate in practice.
Hamilton’s only known statement on the method by which a state should award its electoral votes is contained in an 1800 letter in which he advocated that New York switch from legislative appointment of presidential electors to popular election using districts. There is no record of Hamilton ever endorsing the currently prevailing system in which states conduct popular elections to award 100% of their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the state.
Hamilton was dead for a quarter century before the winner-take-all rule become prevalent in most states (including his own state of New York).
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
More than 99% of polling, organizing, ad spending and visits was showered on voters in just the ten states in 2012 where they were not hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and could win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes.
The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.