BTW, dpn’t you think your blog needs a better wordpress template?

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

This failure has an historic pattern which strongly suggest a deliberate policy maintained over generations of politicians to suppress the many and to favor and enrich the few – a state which is neither a democracy nor a republic – an elite autocracy.

If one agrees with this assessment in general terms then certain choices become very personal and concrete.

Consider Art. 4, Sec. 3. It says “New states may be admitted by the Congress in this union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures concerned as well as of the Congress.”

Clearly, the Constitution implies that a separation and formation by a part of the population of a state from the remainder of the population of a state in order to form a new state for admission in the union is absolutely forbidden. So, a state legislature has no constitutional authority to ‘deannex’ a part of itself to allow the formation of new state by the people. Nor does the constitution recognize any authority for the people of a state to voluntarily and peaceably ‘divorce’ from one another into two or more new states.

Nor may the populations of parts of two or more states, ‘merge’ to form a new state in the union without the consent of the respective legislatures and Congress.

Taken together the clauses of this section raise question which are difficult to resolve logically. On the one hand, if partition and admission are strictly forbidden, then whence the authority and purpose of Congress and the respective legislatures to consent to the formation and admission of new states from parts of existing states?

Can parts of states ‘merge’ into a new state or can they not? We all know W. Virginia was formed from a part of Virginia while North and South Dakota were never one state. Texas is allegedly entitled to split into up to five states according the Act of Annexation of the Texas Republic. If there is an equality among the states, then why do not all states have the right to partition into up to five states? If applied uniformly and exercised this right could enlarge the union to as many as 250 states. The people of California might benefit greatly from dividing into five states – or fifty.

Given precedent and constitutional ambiguity, there may actually be no prohibition against the subdivision of the 50 states into 360 states by act of Congress and the state legislatures. This does not seem to require a constitutional amendment at all. It’s already in there.

Or, the people have the natural right to revolution and secession to form any number of new states and apply to rejoin the union or not.

I use 360 as merely an illustrative number. It could be almost any number. Given the economic implosion of the United States this line of thinking may not be all that theoretical or speculative.

Half the votes in half the gerrymander areas needed for 270 of 538 E.C. votes = about 28 percent of ALL popular votes = ANTI-Democracy ====== powermad Presidents since 1933 especially.

How many State and local regimes survive by having executive / judicial officers directly elected by the PEOPLE ???