Either way is fine as long as Nobamma doesn't get a second term.
National popular vote only ensures that dictator-wannabes such as Obama will get elected. Pure democracy (popular vote) doesn't work as it turns society into mob rule, which then breaks down and gives rise to a dictator. A representative republic, as the US was originally designed, is the only government model that humans have ever come up with that actually works. History has proven this over and over again. And history keeps repeating itself as functional republics are slowly taken over by pure democracy (via marxism, socialism, and communism) which leads to civil break down and the rise of a dictator, which leads to oppression and revolt to form a new republic.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. The Republic is not in any danger.
With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
Joat has it right. A popular vote just leads to chaos. Alaska would have even less say in who wins or looses as there isnt enough people to make a difference in a wide open popular vote. Everything would be decided by Calif, Texas, and New York. You know how that would turn out.
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 assures 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 votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral 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, including Alaska.
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).
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.
The problem with a national popular vote is that the interests of urban areas will always trump the interests of rural ones, because they have the higher numbers. The electoral college allows each region to have a voice and political sway (with more populated regions getting more say), so that a simple majority can't conquer every one else by their sheer numbers. It wouldn't matter so much if government was more localized in nature, but it is becoming increasingly centralized, so the current system is smaller communities' last hope for meaningful political representation.
Now 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 3 jurisdictions.
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored.
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 National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.
If big cities controlled the outcome of even state elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
When every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense to try and elevate your share where you aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Texas, or for a Republican to try it in California.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
All the previous commenters are wrong in their thinking, especially reporting that Obama is a dictator. Racism is alive and well on the Peninsula.
The electoral college was set up long after the republic was set up by the Wigs, they wanted more control over the way things were done and this worked out best for them. As a result we the people have little to no control over how or who is elected. Just like it was set up long ago, a few old white men have all the power. Kinda like the bible, a few old white men wrote it not that there is any truth to it but it worked for them.
Racism in this case is voting for Obamma BECAUSE he's black. Idiots come in all sizes and colors, and that's the reason I didn't vote for him, and won't vote him.
While all of this discussion is fine and dandy, a true representative republic is not ideal. All that will happen gradually over time is unnecessary friction between states, and eventually the dissolution of the USA entirely in favor of new independent state-countries.
Like it or not, the popular vote is the only legitimate vote. Why have any other vote if the majority can't decide? A republic college tells people from more populated states and urban areas "your vote counts less", and that's a sure fire method to disenfranchise voters. I agree there can be a tyranny of a majority, but that is only evidenced in cases of civil rights and its the duty of our judicial branch to nullify those majorities when they infringe on treating everybody equally.
Alaskans need to realize that only 1 in around 800 Americans or so is Alaskan, and we need to modestly use our vote for an American president with our point of view as a citizen of America, not from a point of view of Alaska vs. the lower 48, nor rural vs. urban. You must use your knowledge, experience, as well as empathy for your fellow American citizens to decide what's best. Imagine what it's like to walk a mile in somebody else's shoes.
What I'm more disturbed about is how the Alaska state government has become essentially a large secretary's desk for big oil. We should be worried about diversifying the state economy beyond the aging oil, mining, and fishing industries ourselves because securing a louder voice in the national government wont do it.
cbeard is right on the money.
A tyranny by the majority is not only problematic when it fails to "treat everyone equally." It's a problem when that uniform treatment is desirable to some, and not to others. What if the majority approves of a luxury tax on personal vehicles? Urban areas that enjoy public transportation might adapt easily, and relish the improved air quality as cars phase out. But rural areas will suffer, because long distances make personal commutes necessary, public transportation is limited, and implementing it typically results in greater fuel expenditures - not to mention that air quality is typically fine in remote areas. Some things just need to be decided at the local or regional level, as appropriate. Sometimes it doesn't matter what 51% of people want. Let those 51% implement their ideas in their localities and let the other 49% make their own local laws to suit themselves. Pooling all the votes to see who comes out (barely) ahead and letting them control everyone else (equally or not) is a recipe for large minority disappointment and civil unrest. One central political position such as president should not be that important anyway. It should only govern decisions that absolutely have to be made nationally (such as defense and printing currency). Randomly choosing social issues (like health care) and telling every citizen how they must handle it (buy private health insurance) is an abuse of centralized power. Smaller, localized government, promoted through the electoral college, better preserves individual freedoms - far more valuable than the popular whims of a simple majority.
The Electoral College does not promote smaller, localized government or guard against abuse of centralized power.
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. That's not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. 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. Alaska is ignored.
Talk about a recipe for civil unrest . . .
Since World War II, a shift of only a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes. Just in the last couple of days, I've seen various predictions that 2 the GOP candidates vying for the nomination and President Obama this year could each win the electoral vote, but not win the most popular votes.
Most Americans want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
I just love it when liberals try to debate. Call the other guy wrong, but don't tell anyone why he's wrong. Then follow that up by calling him names (e.g. "racist"). Brilliant debate strategy, oldwolf. But just keep on voting for your politicians based on skin color (i.e. "racism"). The rest of us will actually look at the person's capabilities. Based only on ability, Obama is a terrible leader. Those of us who see that also happen to be the segment of the population (or right-wingers, as you like to call us), who are truly color blind to race. Heck, if it wasn't for us Republicans, the Democrats would still be practicing slavery and the women would be confined to the kitchen with no voting rights.
Folks need to actually look at how the college of electors works before making these erroneous claims that a popular vote would be better for Alaska. Quite the opposite. Under the current system, Alaska holds the 3rd highest state influence (measured per capita) in the entire country. Under a national popular vote, our influence would drop to 49th amongst all the states and DC. We would instantly become insignificant to the nation and be subjected to even further centralized federal control.
The reason that the USA is set up with a Senate that treats each state equally, regardless of population, is to avoid the serious pitfalls of a populist system. The individual states are intended to be the more powerful governments, where they can handle the governing needs of their people much better than a huge centralized government. The federal government is intended to be the weakest layer in our entire society. The one glaring error in our current national political system is the lack of a term limits clause within Congress. That has led to considerable corruption and abuse of power, which has shifted the power to the central government over the years. But that's a whole 'nother topic.
In political reality, Alaska and its voters have NO influence. Zip. Nada. Nil. Alaska IS insignificant to the nation in presidential elections, and beyond. So are 3/4ths of the states and voters. 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
More than 2/3rds of the states, like Alaska, and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states, like Alaska, are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows.
I think the country could benefit from a popular voting system. As an Alaskan I live in a state so partisan it would probably elect the cast of Jersey Shore if it had an "R" next to its name. With the state guaranteed to hand its electoral votes to the Republican candidate each election, I have no voice should I choose to go another way and no incentive to vote. The Republican majority might not have a problem with that, but if you want an example of "tyranny of the majority," here you go.
I'd rather keep my equal share of voice and stop giving all the power to the swing states.
A survey of Alaska voters conducted on January 27-28, 2010 showed 70% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?"
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 66% among Republicans, 78% among Democrats, 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
By gender, support was 78% among women and 60% among men.
By age, support was 68% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for those older than 65.
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.
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.
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc
If a Black person dislikes the Obamanation of Desolation are they Racist?
Probably are according to some on the Peninsula. What about a white or red or yellow or brown person that dislikes others of their same MIX of color, are they racists?
My wife & her family dislike some Mexicans, so i guess they are racists Mexicans according to some that use that term as a FEAR factor to control, not because it's true.
Make no mistake folks OUR Prez. 7% black, 43% arab & 50% white(also Jewish, from the tribes of Dan & Judah) that he is, hates every last one of us Americans, black, red, brown yellow or white & wants to RE-ENSLAVE us ALL under his OWO, period.
If one would take time to view the histories of nations they would see that all eventually return to their roots from a Total distruction or redo of Govt. and that usually takes about 200 yrs, we are at 234 now and what do we see coming?
Thats right slavery & dependance on some special entity or OWO to provide every thing for us, that is if we obey Da Rues.
Any of ya ever read about our founders how they were statesmen that served for one term, then went back to their family & jobs they had before serving those single terms?
We have politicians now that only look towards the next election & fill us all with a long line of BS in order to get elected & relected, with not a single bit of desire to really come thru on promises made, and how can they with the MONEYOPLY thats going on in Big Govt.?
If ya really want to serve, give the Hundreds of Millions used to get elected to the People that ya are BS'n, what kind of a Nut case spends all those millions for a few hundred thousand a year unless there is some hidden reason?
What kind of Nut cases keep relecting them, is a far better question?
Lets make a New Rule, one term in office & ya can't ever run for any other office in Govt. & ya don't get eternal health & retirement benifits, sound good?
Then we would see just how many really want to serve the PEOPLE, not self.
Come on oldwolf49, you know what i say is true.
I have come to realize that my American white Irish, American Indian & American African mix makes me a Racist when i disagree with others of like Bloods, something that i never realized before.
This may be why my white & black bloods seem to disagree with OUR Prez. & thats why my white blood makes me disagree with Bush, Clinton & especially Jimmy the peanut Carter, all white boys, and Cousins to Obama as well.
But i'm a Racist, no matter what color i disagree with.
I just emailed my son about a Peter Sellers Pink Panther film fest that i was watching & laughing at last weekend, remembering how we use to laugh together at the slapstick sillyness of it all.
Jake said that he also loves Blazzing Saddles, as i do & was told by a black soldier that it was a racist movie, to which Jake replied, your right it is racist, if one is white.
The boy is smart & can see through all the BS in regard to supposed racism played by many in this strip poker game of TAKE IT ALL, FROM ALL PEOPLE, played by the OWO advocates, can any of you?
Funny how people use things like race to try & inflict fear & reproach on others when there is actually no racism what so ever involved, all for a type of control on people that stupid enough to allow it.
I still think that ONE term is all servants of the People should get, and that should be by majority vote elections.
Throw out those college things, because they tend to not be as smart as they use to be, especially with all the Foriegn money thats now in control of OUR colleges, all teaching a New Hope & Fundamental Change to Believe in, which is ment to replace OUR old hopes & fundamentals.
Jerry, blood is red, regardless of skin color. Not sure what this has to do about the electoral college? At any rate, those who point fingers and claim "racism" need to realize that they have 3 fingers pointing back at themselves. Most of us don't have the slightest regard for skin color. We size up a person based on their work ethic, actions and integrity.
The fact is, a conservative wants each and every individual to succeed (or fail) on their own accord. It's the decisions you make in life that determine your destiny. We care nothing about where you're from or what color you are. We are all individuals with a vested interest in our own success. Freedom. Opportunity. Self improvement.
On the other side, a liberal divides us all into groups based on what color you are, where you live, how much money you make, how fat you are, what your gender is, and a myraid of other personal life choices. Then they maintain control over the people by keeping each of these groups of people fighting against the other groups by pointing out what one group has that another group does not. They use deception and hate to ensure the "lower class" (defined by them) is fighting against the "upper class" (also defined by them). It is a population control tactic that they have used quite effectively all the way back to the days when they owned slaves.
Back to the OP... no matter how much you try to BS us with fields of percentage signs and false "statistics", the point is very simple; the college of electors is a state's rights issue. It helps to level the national playing field. The one point I do agree with is the use of the "all or nothing" method of distribution is flawed. We are to the point in population centers (such as Los Angeles and New York City) where a single city decides the electorate for the whole state. That is populist "mob rule" mentality.
The absolute last thing you want to put in the hands of a centralized government is the power to determine the ruler of the people based on the individual votes of over 300 million people. This would turn our national election into an impossible myriad of corruption and ensure a downfall from republic towards empire. If you don't believe me, please go look at all the other large countries that have national populist elections (e.g. Russia, Iran, etc).
Man, good thing we have the Electoral College, then. I'd hate to have a corrupt electoral system.
The electoral college is not going to go away it but it should be changed . In Alaska say,we have 3 votes in the college.If 65% of the people vote Republican. And 35% vote Democrat then one of the 3 votes should go to the Democrat candidate.Some other states have done this and it is much more representative.
If the electoral college system goes away then all you will see is fancy TV commercials of each candidate making outrageous promises like to triple all welfare payments, give full citizenship to everyone already here by such and such date and forgive all student loans and past due house payments. Then the majority of the idiots would run out to vote for him never once thinking just where the money is going to come from. They only completely fair system is a representative vote where you rank your choices and the lowest totals are discarded and their 2nd choice is added in. This goes on until someone wins over 50% so everyone doesn't fear voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning!
Now if you want to know how you can make a nice ongoing income from the internet with nothing to ever buy, sell or even pay to join up required. Send me an email to firstname.lastname@example.org for the details! Opportunity is at your door! :-)
One only needs to look at where the majority of the U.S. population lives and realize that heartland of America would never be able to help elect a president.
I used to think it should be by popular vote until I started looking at the electoral map and how each state ususally votes. Those states like California, Washington, Oregon, and nearly the entire northern east coast would run the country with their libral views. Our forefathers were wise to have chosen this system.
If i was a gambler i would bet that we never see a 2012 Free election, this all due to the OBAMANATION OF DESOLATIONS Dream act . An act to bring about his Fundamental change to believe after a world wide economic crash leading to a OWO.
This new hope & fundamental change in which he wants us to believe in is actually a hopeless hope & departure from OUR OLD Fundamentals & beliefs, not a good thing this Ones Dream.
I really don't see either system being of any value to voters in this coming election, if we can even make it to then as a soverign nation.
I hope i'm wrong, but i don't think so and if others were honest they too would see, and admit that we are about to crash and its not looking good for anyone on earth.
I think the founding fathers had a fairly decent grip on the thoughts behind the electoral college. The Federalist (Papers); Essay #68 by Alexander Hamilton ("Publius") explains the thought process behind the electoral college. Rarely does the electorate of the state go against the popular vote of that state. The population of the state dictates the number of electoral votes just as it dictates representation in Washington.
The Federalist Papers hold a great deal of insight into the ideas and principals behind our form of government and elections. A good read for any American. The authors, Alexander Hamilton (First Secretary of the United States Treasury), James Madison (fourth President of the United States and chief author of the US Constitution) and John Jay (first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court), had a pretty good idea of what a populist government would result in.
John Quincy Adams or George W. Bush would have never held office had it been a popular vote that decided the office.
It is of some dispute if Aaron Burr would have beaten Thomas Jefferson had popular vote been taken instead of electoral college.
This method of election is what fair representation is made of.
Skip to News
Peninsula Clarion ©2014. All Rights Reserved.