The deep Blue states above all have something in common. They’re all ruled by solid Democrat majorities in their State Legislatures and they’ve all passed legislation designed to favor Democrat urban strongholds, disenfranchise less populated Red States and have a decisive effect on the 2012 election.
And very few people know about it.
The legislation is known as The National Popular Vote bill, and there’s an ongoing attempt to get it passed in as many states as possible. It’s mainly being championed by Democrats, with a sprinkling of Republicans to give it the aura of ‘bi-partisanship’.
The states above control 138 electoral votes. Because they’ve all signed on to The National Popular Vote Act, those electoral votes will automatically go to the candidate who gets the most popular votes nationally -regardless of how the citizens of these states actually vote.
For instance, let’s say that in 2012 the largely Republican voters in downstate Illinois and some of the suburbs manage to outvote the Democrats, corpses, illegal aliens and vagrants put together by the ward bosses and the machine in Chicago and Cook County. Because the Democrats in the Illinois Legislature have managed to push the National Popular Vote Act through, Illinois’ 20 electoral votes would go not necessarily to the Republican candidate the majority of voters in the state chose but to whichever candidate got the majority of votes nationally. If Barack Obama were to win the popular vote nationally by even as little as 100 votes, Illinois’ 20 electoral votes will automatically go him.
This scenario is also known as Al Gore’s wet dream.
None of these states held a referendum on this. It was all done by legislative fiat.
It’s also interesting to look at some of the people behind this.
The Chairman, Dr. John Kozas of Los Altos California is a wealthy lefty who made his money from co-inventing the scratch-off lottery ticket and then lobbying state governments to sell them. Among many other far Left and socialist groups and candidates he’s supported as a donor and/or bundled for is Howard Dean’s Democracy For America ( DFA) political organization, Berkeley nut case Rep. Barbara Lee, Senator Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, The Democratic Farmer/Labor Party, the DNC, Senator Boxer’s PAC for a Change, and of course, Barack Obama. The list is a long one.
Tom Golisano is a prominent business man with deep pockets who was the co-counder of the Independence Party of New York, a party split between Perotistas and a strong Marxist element. He was also a Kerry donor.Forbes estimates his personal wealth at $1.2 billion.
Barry Fadem, the president, is a long-time Democrat operative in California, who worked for Governor Jerry Brown and Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally arguably one of the most incompetent and perhaps racist public officials in state history. He’s another Boxer donor, as well as to ActBlue, an organization that seeks to organize boycotts to penalize businesses thought to be too ‘Republican’.
Jason Roe was a Republican operative in the northeast with all that implies until he got a little too close to Jack Abramoff.
National Popular Vote Secretary Chris Pearson is another long time far Left Democrat operative who worked with admitted socialist Bernie Sanders and the Progressive Party.
Larry Sokol is a longtime Democrat legislative staffer and lobbyist in California. His connections were instrumental in shepherding the Nation Popular Vote Bill through the California Legislature.
Former Minnesota GOP Representative Laura Brod is something of the odd person out here.While the cast of the group is overwhelmingly Left- leaning, Brod says there is a conservative argument for NPV.
She claims that this is a state’s rights prerogative according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, that the current system means that national candidates spend their time and resources and craft policy based on the needs of battleground states while ignoring states with little electoral clout and states they feel they have no chance of carrying. Brod’s argument is that NPV will make every vote count and force National candidates to campaign in every state. These arguments all have some validity. Democrat nominees usually give Utah and Texas a pass and Republicans do the same to Connecticut and Massachusetts…Please read the entire article as it is quite educational: Joshua Pundit
The NY Senate will vote first and, to date, only Senator Lee Zeldin and Assemblyman Al Graf have told me they are opposed. We have work to do New York and if the politicians tell you it probably won’t be voted on, please know that it is on the calendar and can be voted on any day. If they tell you it probably won’t pass, ask them why it is on the calendar.
3 comments:
It's no secret. It's been around since 2006, and been introduced in all 50 states. 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. It is NOT in effect for the 2012 election.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It ensures that every vote 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 vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. That majority of Electoral College votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning candidates in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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 constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
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 virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
A survey of New York voters conducted on December 22-23, 2008 showed 79% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By gender, support was 89% among women and 69% among men.
By age, support was 60% among 18-29 year olds, 74% among 30-45 year olds, 85% among 46-65 year olds, and 82% for those older than 65.
Support was 86% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, 78% among Independence Party members (representing 8% of respondents), 50% among Conservative Party members (representing 3% of respondents), 100% among Working Families Party members (representing 2% of respondents), and 7% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).
*
A 2009 survey of Minnesota voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 84% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 68% among others.
By age, support was 74% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 83% among women and 67% among men.
NationalPopularVote
Now political clout in presidential elections comes from being among the handful of battleground states. More than 2/3rds of states and voters are ignored.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by three jurisdictions.
Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections-- NH, NM, and NV. These three states contain only 14 (8%) of the 22 medium-lowest population states' total 166 electoral votes.
* * *
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
* * *
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
Post a Comment