Home General Orange County Register Newspaper Story on Republican Fight Against National Popular Vote Plan
formats

Orange County Register Newspaper Story on Republican Fight Against National Popular Vote Plan

Published on January 5, 2013, by in General.

This Orange County Register newspaper details the activities of Republican Party officials who have been active to stop the National Popular Vote Plan bill from passing in any more states.

12 Responses

  1. Demo Rep

    NO uniform definition of Elector-Voter in the NPV statutory scheme from Hell.

    REAL remedy – Const Amdt
    Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

    Difficult ONLY for EVIL morons with their statutory fix so-called mentality.

  2. Baronscarpia

    From the article:

    “Republican critics say that the National Popular Vote compact would result in elections being decided – and campaigns being focused – in 20 or so large urban areas, with the rest of the country being largely ignored. They say that would give the edge to Democrats, in part because they could turn out more voters per campaign dollar spent in those areas, and because Democrats are better skilled at campaigning in big cities.”

    “They know how to run cities,” Steel said. “It’s a culture. We can’t compete with that.”

    ————

    Wow. That tells you pretty much all you know about what is driving the Republicans’ opposition to NPV. All the nonsense about the Founding Fathers’ intentions is just cover for what, at its heart, is fear of the impact of a growing urban, nonwhite majority of the electorate.

    Is there something more intrinsically valid…more American…about a vote cast by a white farmer than a nonwhite city dweller? What would be wrong with campaigns focusing more than they do now on metropolitan areas? The 2010 census identified these 20 cities as the most populous:

    NY
    LA
    Chicago
    Houston
    Phil
    Phoenix
    San Antonio
    San Diego
    Dallas
    San Jose
    Jacksonville
    Indianapolis
    SF
    Austin
    Columbus
    Fort Worth
    Charlotte
    Detroit
    El Paso
    Memphis

    I believe only five of those cities were visited by a presidential candidate of either major party during the general election of 2012. Does this seem right to anyone? 27 million people in 15 of the most populous cities (more if you count greater metro areas) never saw either of the candidates in person, and somehow this is better than a few thousand white Iowan farmers seeing them dozens of times? Why? What’s so fundamentally wrong with city dwellers that they deserve to be disenfranchised by the anachronistic EC scheme?

    And besides…campaigns are now waged largely through the media, which reach anyone who wants to pay attention, wherever they may live. You Republican voters in Montana and Idaho, and you Democratic voters in Hawaii and Vermont – did you somehow miss the 2012 campaign because the candidates and the campaigns didn’t visit your states in person? Of course not.

  3. Sam

    The national popular vote plan seems like a complete waste of time since its not based on proportionalism, but winner-take-all and FPTP i.e. the one with the most popular votes gets all the electoral votes.

    A true reform would give proportionate electoral votes to each candidate, based on the percentages of votes cast.

    The “leaders” who are contriving these efforts should be exposed and held accountable.

    Want to see what pure proportional representation (PR) looks like, where 1/1001ths (or .0999%) plus one vote, elects each of the 1000 names under the Hagnebach-Bischoff method, ranked choice voting (RCV), the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system?

    Check out the 9th USA Parliament! We’ve been using PR for 18 consecutive years and it works great!

    http://www.usparliament.org

  4. Richard Winger

    #3, when the election is for the purpose of electing a single person, it makes no sense to talk about proportionality. One can’t elect a fraction of a human being.

    #2, thanks for that good research.

  5. Baronscarpia

    4 –

    Oh, I don’t know…Taft might have qualified as 1.4 presidents.

  6. Sam

    @4 Since proportionality is the diametric opposite of single-winner elections, why does that make no sense?

    That’s like saying talking about having no air to breath has nothing to do with breathing.

  7. Sam

    @4 Another thing, POTUS is a two-member district – president and vice president. The ONLY elected office in the USA as a national district, is a two-winner election. A great opportunity for gender balance too!

    Under advanced elections in two-member districts, when 2/3rds of the voters vote for the top ranked female and the top ranked male, we’re mathematically guaranteed to elect one male and one female (or visa versa).

  8. Sam

    @4 Proportionality is a third alternative that never crosses the mind of single-winner power grabbers. It’s simply not allowed into the conversation.

  9. Sam

    @4 Single-winner district power-grabbers are too busy trying to create fights over rules for single-winner districts because they are control freaks who want to grab the power in the single-winner districts.

    They generally have no time for team psychology.

    Want to learn about team psychology? Try the 9th USA Parliament’s new Vote Counting School, it’s one of our specialties. Join nine other students in classes today:
    http://usparliament.org/votecountingschool.php

  10. Jonathan

    7 –

    At one time in our history the runner-up became vice president.

    See 12th amendment for what other Americans thought about proportionality applied to the Executive branch of government.

  11. Sam

    @10 Jonathan, there is no stopping more advanced, fairer elections. It’s a winner whose time will eventually triumph. That’s a fact.

    All voters want to move towards more fairness, better representation and inclusion/competition of ideas, unity and conciliation.

    The only thing that’s slowing progress is every action being made in the opposite direction of unity created by advanced election voting systems in all elections, including the executive branch.

    A guarantee of 66.66% plus two votes under the Sainte-Lague will eventually trump any plurality election because plurality elections can’t guarantee either the minimum level of satisfaction of 66.66% plus two votes in a two-member district or 99.9% plus 1000 votes in a 1000 member district.

    The 9th USA Parliament has been doing it for 18 consecutive years and it works great!

  12. Jonathan

    11 –

    Yes, I see!

    Just wondering…does the 9th USA Parliament issue S&H Green stamps as currency?

    Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Protected with SiteGuarding.com Antivirus