On March 3, the Alabama House Constitution and Elections Committee will hold a hearing on HB 515. The bill would provide that presidential electors should be elected in proportion to their share of the popular vote within Alabama. Alabama has 8 electoral votes. Under the bill, if a presidential candidate polled roughly 38% of the vote, three electors pledged to him or her would be elected.
The bill is sponsored by Representative Demetrius Newton (D-Birmingham). A similar bill was introduced in previous sessions of the legislature, but did not pass. Thanks to Bob Friedman for this news.
Any New Age Prezs split in parts ???
Perhaps Prez X for X days a week and Prez Y for Y days a week ???
The Electoral College was one of the E–V–I–L *deals* at the top secret behind- closed- doors 1787 Convention.
Other EVIL deals — 3/5 math for slaves, 2 Senators per State, appointed party hack Senators, Prez veto (making the Prez a de facto monarch).
2 down , 2 to go.
P.R. and A.V. — ABOLISH the time bomb Electoral College.
To Hell with the party hack small States, if necessary — many of which were created by the party hack Elephants during and after the Civil War to try and have permanent Elephant control of the gerrymander Senate — and even the Prez.
Alabama has 9 electors.
The bill leaves the method of apportionment undefined. Certainly a more substantive omission than neglecting to specify that the SOS may close at 5 pm.
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.
The fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, if used nationwide, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
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. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The problem is; with National Popular vote; the small states will loose their voice to states like California and New York.
I notice all of these states that have passed it have more than 3 Electors.
If we had the National Popular Vote law in 2000 instead of going over the votes in four counties in Florida we would have been going over all the votes in all the counties in all the states. Keep the Electoral College!!
NPV is one more MORON statutory *fix* — like IRV.
NPV blatantly violates the Equal Protection Clause — having the election results INSIDE a sovereign State being determined by election results OUTSIDE of such sovereign State.
P.R. and A.V. — pending MAJOR public education about head to head Condorcet math.
The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
In the 13 smallest states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by eight state legislative chambers, including one house in Delaware and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Under the current winner-take-all system, there are 51 separate opportunities for recounts in every presidential election. Thus, our nation’s 56 presidential elections have really been 2,084 separate state-level elections. There have been five seriously disputed counts in the nation’ 56 presidential elections. The current system has repeatedly created artificial crises in which the vote has been extremely close in particular states, while not close on a nationwide basis. Note that five seriously disputed counts out of 2,084 is closely in line with the historically observed probability of 1 in 332.
A national popular vote would reduce the probability of a recount from five instances in 56 presidential elections to one instance in 332 elections (that is, once in 1,328 years). In fact, the reduction would be even greater because a close result is less likely to occur as the size of the jurisdiction increases. Indeed, only two of the 23 recounts among the 7,645 statewide elections in the 26-year period from 1980 through 2006 were in big states.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical recount (averaging only 274 votes), no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
A single national pool of votes is the way to drastically reduce the likelihood of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises produced by the current system.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment says:
“no state [shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only restricts a given state in the manner it treats persons “within its jurisdiction.” The Equal Protection Clause imposes no obligation on a given state concerning a “person” in another state who is not “within its [the first state’s] jurisdiction.”
The National Popular Vote bill does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
It is important to note 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. Existing 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).
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.
What part of Article 12 of the US Constitution does some people not understand? “The Electors shall meet…”
If we want to go to popular vote election for the Presidency, then amend Article 12 accordingly – not do it through the back door!
The Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): “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.”
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 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, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
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 rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district — a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
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.
NPV scheme math
U.S.A.
ZZ 50,000,001
AA 50,000,000
ZZ wins
State SSS
ZZ 1 [the DEVIL candidate unable to brainwash the voters in his/her/its home State]
AA 1,000,000
How many States will make even FOREIGN voters suddenly become voters for U.S.A. Prez with the NPV scheme — i.e. the Asian hoards voting for U.S.A. Prez ???
Looks like ZZ lost in State SSS but seems to have won in the entire U.S.A. — pending a recount in State SSS ???
Also — The NPV fix/scheme has NOT received the approval of the gerrymander Congress according to Art. I, Sec. 10, para. 3.
Any such approval can NOT violate other parts of the Constitution — i.e. the EP clause in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.
Stop the EVIL madness —-
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and A.V.
Difficult only for New Age MORONS — with their EVIL fix pre-school MORON schemes — IRV, NPV, top 2 primaries, etc. etc.
#11 The top secret party hacks in 1787 also happened to have the EVIL 3/5 math for slaves and the return slave stuff in Art. IV, Sec. 2, para. 3 = EVIL — gotten rid of the very hard way in 1861-1865 — 620,000 DEAD Americans — paying the real price for the 13th, 14th and 15th Amdts.
I.E. STOP worshipping EVIL MORON stuff from the EVIL past.
All the JUNK past political stuff can be the subject of a polisci Ph.D. paper in about 5,000 years or more — when the future can note the STONE AGE political math in the U.S.A. from 1776 to 2010.
—-
The current Electoral College math produces indirect MINORITY RULE.
Half the votes plus in enough gerrymander States and D.C. to get 270 of the 538 E.C. votes =======
About 28-30 percent of the voters have de facto been electing gerrymander Presidents since 1832 — repeat 1832 (with the *modern* party hack convention system).
=== gerrymander oligarchs picking each party hack Prez — after the subgroup extremist party hacks have nominated a Prez candidate via indirect minority rule party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions.
Pity the poor voters in the about 10 battleground E.C. gerrymander States — suffering under a zillion attack ads in Sep-Nov of Prez election years.
EVIL cute for the 1700s — now SUPER-EVIL DANGEROUS.
Quite amazing that the U.S.A. has not had too many blatant Stalin/Hitler type Prezs — but note the EVIL Prez Nixon in 1972-1974 and his various schemes to subvert the Constitution — enemy lists, etc.
Election related Amdts to the Constitution —
12
14 Sec. 2
15
17
19
20
22
23
24
26
28 [from 1789]
—-
11 of 18 since 1-10 in 1791.
The Sun will continue to rise if and when the U.S.A. becomes a *democratic* nation — and gets rid of its various EVIL minority rule gerrymander systems from the EVIL past.
P.R. and A.V.
Typo
27 [from 1789]
—
11 of 17 since 1-10 in 1791.
#7 The District of Columbia is not a State.
#8 Dear toto-bot
“Under the current winner-take-all system, there are 51 separate opportunities for recounts in every presidential election. Thus, our nation’s 56 presidential elections have really been 2,084 separate state-level elections. There have been five seriously disputed counts in the nation’ 56 presidential elections. The current system has repeatedly created artificial crises in which the vote has been extremely close in particular states, while not close on a nationwide basis. Note that five seriously disputed counts out of 2,084 is closely in line with the historically observed probability of 1 in 332.
What does the historically observed probability of “1 in 332” refer to? What do you mean by “5 out of 2084”?
Which were the 5 serious disputed counts?
1880? 1960? 2000? 1876? 1824?
#9 Have you prepared a mock certificate of ascertainment for a State that was a member of the compact? What would it look like?
Let’s pretend that you are the Secretary of State of Kansas, or another State if you are no longer there.
In 1789, the People had a vote in Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The electors were chosen exclusively by Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey, and South Carolina.
6 out of 10 States is MOST.
Based on the number of votes cast, it appears that suffrage for elections for presidential electors and US representatives was the same, and presumably the same as for the larger house of the state legislature and delegate to the ratifying conventions.
Are you suggesting that the Constitution is illegal?
Which 3 States do you believe used “winner take all” in 1789?
Based on a recent study of 7,645 statewide elections in the 26-year period from 1980 through 2006 by FairVote, the probability of a recount is 1 in 332 elections (23 recounts in 7,645 elections). The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a recount was a mere 274 votes. The original outcome remained unchanged in over 90% of the recounts.
If the President were elected from a single nationwide pool of votes, one would expect a recount once in 332 elections, or once in 1,328 years. The fact is that recounts would be far less likely to occur under a national popular vote system than under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to
the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state).
#18 Were the members of the 1787-1790 State ratifying conventions chosen using the 1787-1790 minority rule gerrymanders for electing members of the State legislatures ???
Gerrymanders since day 1 — in the formation of the early colonial legislatures in the 1600s.
Early VA regime – each gerrymander plantation on the James River sends party hacks to meet — VA House of Burgesses. [now aka State Reps.]
Original party hacks did not like losing power = reduced power for folks away from the East coast.
P.R. and A.V.
#19 Really really bad statistics, Toto.
Of the 13 presidential elections since 1960, 38.5% have been within 5%; but only 23.0% of the statewide results.
Or if we use 3% then it is 14.8% statewide vs. 38.5% national.
The last 3 elections have had margins of 7.26%, 2.46%, and 0.52% nationally; but 6, 7, and 7 states have been within 3%.
Of the last 13 presidential elections, the 4th biggest blowout (1980) had the largest number of close state results (24 within 5%).
If we look at the 2000 Florida recount, key counties included Broward where Gore had a 210K/37% margin, and Palm Beach where Gore had a 117K/27% margin.
The closest presidential popular vote margin was in 1880, when very few States were particularly close. And there were contested aingle House races that were later overturned with a greater change than the national popular vote margin.
You would probably argue that 1880 was the one in 1328 years, so we won’t have another until 3208. Or perhaps since it happened so soon (in the 24th election or first 7% of your predicted 332 elections) it might not have happened at all.
And if there was an election that was recount close, you have yet to explain how this recount would occur.
A recount is not an unimaginable horror or logistical impossibility. A recount is a recognized contingency that is occasionally required (about once in 332 elections). All states routinely make arrangements for a recount in advance of every election. The personnel and resources necessary to conduct a recount are indigenous to each state. A state’s ability to conduct a recount inside its own borders is unrelated to whether or not a recount may be occurring in another state.
If anyone is genuinely concerned about the possibility of recounts, then a single national pool of votes is the way to drastically reduce the likelihood of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises produced by the current system.