Comments on: Mourning the loss of the Electoral College http://blog.amyolivershow.com/2009/03/mourning-the-loss-of-the-electoral-college/ Just another WordPress weblog Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:30:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Colorado Spending Transparency » COST would have done it for free http://blog.amyolivershow.com/2009/03/mourning-the-loss-of-the-electoral-college/comment-page-1/#comment-189 Colorado Spending Transparency » COST would have done it for free Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:57:15 +0000 http://blog.amyolivershow.com/?p=168#comment-189 [...] Bob Bacon lectured Amy when she took time off work to testify against HB 1299, the legislation to destroy the Electoral College.  At the same time Bacon nearly gave attorney/lobbyist Mark Grueskin a standing [...] [...] Bob Bacon lectured Amy when she took time off work to testify against HB 1299, the legislation to destroy the Electoral College.  At the same time Bacon nearly gave attorney/lobbyist Mark Grueskin a standing [...]

]]> By: A Simpler Stimulus Plan of the People « Noise From The Balcony http://blog.amyolivershow.com/2009/03/mourning-the-loss-of-the-electoral-college/comment-page-1/#comment-80 A Simpler Stimulus Plan of the People « Noise From The Balcony Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:16:04 +0000 http://blog.amyolivershow.com/?p=168#comment-80 [...] at home, Senator Bob Bacon (Colorado) is actually trying to get rid of our Colorado Electoral College votes — he seems to think it [...] [...] at home, Senator Bob Bacon (Colorado) is actually trying to get rid of our Colorado Electoral College votes — he seems to think it [...]

]]> By: mvymvy http://blog.amyolivershow.com/2009/03/mourning-the-loss-of-the-electoral-college/comment-page-1/#comment-79 mvymvy Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:26:39 +0000 http://blog.amyolivershow.com/?p=168#comment-79 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. It is a simple matter that your vote should count as much as everyone else's. 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. It is a simple matter that your vote should count as much as everyone else’s.

]]> By: mvymvy http://blog.amyolivershow.com/2009/03/mourning-the-loss-of-the-electoral-college/comment-page-1/#comment-78 mvymvy Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:25:16 +0000 http://blog.amyolivershow.com/?p=168#comment-78 The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors. Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, nowadays, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states. In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states. In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) 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, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state . The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified 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. What the current U.S. Constitution says is "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 normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives “exclusive” and “plenary” control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.

Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation’s first election in 1789. However, nowadays, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) 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, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state .

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified 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.

What the current U.S. Constitution says is “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.”

]]> By: mvymvy http://blog.amyolivershow.com/2009/03/mourning-the-loss-of-the-electoral-college/comment-page-1/#comment-76 mvymvy Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:24:17 +0000 http://blog.amyolivershow.com/?p=168#comment-76 The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 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. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule 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. Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections. In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide. The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. 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. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule 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.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

]]> By: Dale Parrish http://blog.amyolivershow.com/2009/03/mourning-the-loss-of-the-electoral-college/comment-page-1/#comment-75 Dale Parrish Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:27:30 +0000 http://blog.amyolivershow.com/?p=168#comment-75 I know the feeling on not being able to responed to the great leaders we have elected. They never let the little guy have a voice and how dare you speak to them. The time is coming when we will speak with a outraged voice and they will have to listen. I know the feeling on not being able to responed to the great leaders we have elected. They never let the little guy have a voice and how dare you speak to them.
The time is coming when we will speak with a outraged voice and they will have to listen.

]]>