tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post5846472246919213353..comments2024-03-14T04:07:39.792-07:00Comments on Earl Pomerantz: Just Thinking...: "I Don't Understand"Earl Pomerantzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963705121297866334noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-7781229040803396342008-06-13T10:27:00.000-07:002008-06-13T10:27:00.000-07:00I hate to nitpick, Earl, but the Electoral College...I hate to nitpick, Earl, but the Electoral College system had already been established by the time the French Revolution began. So the head lopping really had nothing to do with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-8351071277463425612008-06-06T09:30:00.000-07:002008-06-06T09:30:00.000-07:00To see the day when the national popular vote will...To see the day when the national popular vote will elect the president, support the National Popular Vote bill.<BR/><BR/>The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). 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). <BR/><BR/>The bill would make every vote politically relevant in a presidential election. It would make every vote equal. <BR/><BR/>The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect. <BR/><BR/>To be involved in the National Popular Vote bill effort . . .<BR/><BR/>You can check the status of the bill in your state at http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/statesactivity.php<BR/><BR/>If it's still in play in your state, let your legislator(s) know what you think. If you need help to identify and/or contact your state representatives, senators, and/or governor about National Popular Vote, you can search by your zip code using online sites such as http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home <BR/><BR/>Sign up to get email updates - http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/getemailupdates.php<BR/><BR/>Help get the word out and show your support.<BR/><BR/>Tell a friend- http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/tellafriend.php<BR/>Distribute literature at political, civic, or other meeting, convention, or conference. <BR/>Post on discussion groups.<BR/>Write letters to editors, OpEds, and/or blog.<BR/>Please include a link to the National Popular Vote web site by including something like "See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com"<BR/><BR/>Up-to-date information and materials are at http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/explanation.php<BR/><BR/>susanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-5285531796551665012008-06-05T18:13:00.000-07:002008-06-05T18:13:00.000-07:00I've got just the puppets for you.I've got just the puppets for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-1969546668573590952008-06-05T16:16:00.000-07:002008-06-05T16:16:00.000-07:00This is a general comment. Thank you for your con...This is a general comment. Thank you for your contributions. I now hawe Youtube links to "Best of the West" and "The vessel with the pestle" scene from "The Court Jester." I now also know that Maine and Newbraska proportionally apply their electoral votes, though I'm still not convinced why all the states don't do it. <BR/><BR/>I appreciate anyone who takes the time to write in. The only way I know how to thank you is to keep doing this.<BR/><BR/>Keep reading. And writing in. Without you, I'm just talking to myself with my fingers.Earl Pomerantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16963705121297866334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-33025913377459588382008-06-05T16:11:00.000-07:002008-06-05T16:11:00.000-07:00Earl, @mike tennant pretty much nails it, but I'm ...Earl, @mike tennant pretty much nails it, but I'm going to distill that a bit more. This isn't a democracy: it's a federated republic of sovereign, democratic states. It is not for the people to choose the President, it is for the states.<BR/><BR/>Like or dislike that system, it is the one our founders gave us.<BR/><BR/>This is also why our more deliberative and conservative camera - the Senate - is the one apportioned to give the states more power. <BR/><BR/>@nicka13 also emphasizes your point about small states. More directly, if the populations of the big states were to effectively hold sway over Presidential power like that, Arizona and Nevada would be shut down when the entirety of the Colorado river basin (and to a lesser extent up north, the Truckee and American rivers) were diverted to slake California's thirst. That's just one example.R.A. Porterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851961356321735388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-67599962664987106182008-06-05T11:21:00.000-07:002008-06-05T11:21:00.000-07:00Hey there Earl,First, I love the blog! Thanks for...Hey there Earl,<BR/><BR/>First, I love the blog! Thanks for taking the time to write.<BR/><BR/>Second, I think the explanation is pretty simple. You said the following:<BR/><BR/>"Another issue is that, due to population deficiencies, the small states were afraid they’d be overlooked in presidential elections, if only the popular vote was considered. The candidates would simply campaign in the more populated states, where the greater number of votes could be had, and totally ignore North Dakoka. <BR/><BR/>I understand that too."<BR/><BR/>Well, the Electoral College is what ensures this. If the Electoral College votes were handed out in direct proportion to the popular vote, then small States would still not matter. Can you think of another way to ensure that small States matter?NickA13https://www.blogger.com/profile/15168603992798213013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-10764501040777463132008-06-05T10:58:00.000-07:002008-06-05T10:58:00.000-07:00Now I finally understand your wife...is her list r...Now I finally understand your wife...is her list ready yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-3027372878706674362008-06-05T09:54:00.000-07:002008-06-05T09:54:00.000-07:00Cui non bono? (I don't actually know if that's ri...Cui non bono? (I don't actually know if that's right.)<BR/><BR/>I agree with Mike. If the Democrats didn't stand to gain, they'd be fighting it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-32014711456112685312008-06-05T07:39:00.000-07:002008-06-05T07:39:00.000-07:00Let me give this a shot, Earl.There are no federal...Let me give this a shot, Earl.<BR/><BR/>There are no federal elections in this country because the federal government is a creation of the states, not vice versa. Every election is held at the state level or lower. Therefore, it is up to each state to set its own rules governing elections. (Meanwhile, primaries, while generally conducted by state governments, are really the province of the parties since they're just the way the parties have chosen to have their nominees selected--hence the DNC's ability to throw out, in whole or in part, the results of Florida's and Michigan's primaries.) It's all part of the federal system, in which most power and responsibilities are supposed to be devolved to the lowest level possible.<BR/><BR/>The all-or-nothing Electoral College system <B>may </B>benefit Republicans currently, but it's not as if the last century has witnessed a dearth of Democratic presidents under roughly the same system. FDR won four terms; Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Carter each won one term; and Wilson and Clinton each won two. At the same time, for most of the century the Democrats dominated both houses of Congress.<BR/><BR/>I happen to agree that selection of electors by congressional district would be a better system, but I think both parties like it this way because they can concentrate all their efforts on the areas of each state where the most votes are, and on the states with the most electors, and ignore the rest of the people. Then again, I'm of the opinion that the Democrats and Republicans are just two heads of the same monster trying to destroy us, which is why they stick together on these things and only quibble (as you correcly noted) about surface issues.<BR/><BR/>Unless the Constitution is amended to put the federal government in charge of deciding each state's election laws, this is going to have to change on a state-by-state basis. Good luck.<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work with the blog. It's always enjoyable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-64993279615819702402008-06-05T07:34:00.000-07:002008-06-05T07:34:00.000-07:00I have some observations. I doubt they'll directl...I have some observations. I doubt they'll directly lead to understanding, but perhaps they'll help.<BR/><BR/>First, that Senator Clinton currently leads the <I>popular vote</I> in the Democratic party primary. The Democratic primary rules do not allow "winner take all" states, and yet, the popular vote isn't running the show.<BR/><BR/>Second, the apportionment of delegates to the electoral college is up to the individual states. Constitutionally, they don't even have to choose delegates through a popular vote at all! A state's constitution could declare that the governor appoint them all!<BR/><BR/>So, if the states choose to get rid of this winner-take-all system in the Electoral College, they can do so. But if they do, you can still have "upsets", such as Senators Clinton and Obama.<BR/><BR/>This gives rise to "why have super-delegates", which is the political question <I>I</I> don't understand today. They seem to exist so that the party elite can <I>throw</I> a close primary election one way or another. But very few of them are willing to do so publicly. I haven't checked the numbers since Tuesday night, but at the time, there were still enough uncommitted super-delegates that they could en-mass decide that the delegate equation isn't reflecting the total popular vote of the nation and all endorse Senator Clinton. But individually, they'd appear to be going against the popular vote in their home districts.<BR/><BR/>As immortalized in the Broadway musical <I>1776</I>, it was the delegate from Georgia who switched his vote on the Declaration of Independence at the very end, against the instructions of his colony. A delegate has a conscience, and is expected to exercise it at his discretion, even if it goes against the popular vote or his instructions, no?<BR/><BR/>I think I've come to a conclusion while writing this. We have such things as the Electoral Collage just as you said, to put a check and balance on the power of the popular vote. The popular vote isn't always right, and it is sometime up to the conscience of our delegates and elected leaders to go against the whim of the masses to ensure our government is one of law and reason. (Isn't the whim of the majority just as tyrannical as the whim of a King? I think this is what our founding fathers were trying to avoid.)<BR/><BR/>Oh, and I feel the left is just as guilty of using "wedge issues". That's stock and trade of a politician of any party. I can't recall an election where there hasn't been a claim of, "the right will take away your Medicare and social security benefits." More recently, another key "wedge issue" for both sides has been withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the Reform Party, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party all have their pet platforms too.<BR/><BR/>Much more than eliminating the Electoral College, I think the change I'd like to see is the adoption of a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote" REL="nofollow">Single Transferable Vote</A> (also called an Instant Runoff) system for all elections across the United States. If I'd prefer to vote Reform or Green or Libertarian, right now that's seen as throwing away my vote. But if I listed Democrat or Republican as my second choice... if I knew my preference would still be counted if my first choice were mathematically eliminated... I'd be much more inclined to vote my conscience as my first choice and hedge my bet with the second. Too often people vote against the other guy, than for anything they believe in.<BR/><BR/>Sorry I've been so long winded. I hope when I click submit that this isn't longer than your original post. It sure looks that way in the preview. ;-)Seonaidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09776458854951685130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-34282013664499125962008-06-05T07:30:00.000-07:002008-06-05T07:30:00.000-07:00From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._...From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College):<BR/><BR/>All states—except two—employ the winner-takes-all method, awarding their presidential electors as an indivisible bloc. The exceptions, Maine and Nebraska, select one elector within each congressional district by popular vote, and additionally select the remaining two electors by the aggregate, statewide popular vote. This method has been used in Maine since 1972, and in Nebraska since 1992.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com