Comments on: Everyone Votes for Jane and Joe Schmoe for President on Tuesday! http://libertymaven.com/2008/11/03/everyone-votes-for-jane-and-joe-schmoe-for-president-on-tuesday/2954/ For Liberty, One Individual At A Time Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:44:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: wrdalton http://libertymaven.com/2008/11/03/everyone-votes-for-jane-and-joe-schmoe-for-president-on-tuesday/2954/comment-page-1/#comment-1678 wrdalton Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:04:54 +0000 http://libertymaven.com/?p=2954#comment-1678 The solution to the problem of presidential elections is to do away with the popular vote entirely. The nation's founders were deathly afraid of a popularly elected President, who would accrue the the powers of a King. It took the strong integrity of George Washington to prevet him becoming one. The framers of the Constitution didn't even trust having statewide popular elections of U.S. Senators. The House of Representatives, each member representing a district or state of, at most, a few thousand people, who would know those candidates for office personally, was as far as they would trust the inherently corruptible democratic system. It was called the people's house. But U.S. Senators would be chosen by State Assemblies and Legislatures, composed of people who would know the candidates they are voting for, and the President and Vice President would be chosen by electors, themselves chosen by the people because these electors would be knowledgable of and conversant with the likely candidates to head the U.S. government. High public office could no longer be bought and sold when office holders are chosen by those who know the issues, know the candidates, and who themselves, are seeking no private benefit from the government. We should be choosing such electors on the basis of these qualifications, in their own names, and not the names of people who want to grab the power of government for themselves. The solution to the problem of presidential elections is to do away with the popular vote entirely. The nation’s founders were deathly afraid of a popularly elected President, who would accrue the the powers of a King. It took the strong integrity of George Washington to prevet him becoming one. The framers of the Constitution didn’t even trust having statewide popular elections of U.S. Senators. The House of Representatives, each member representing a district or state of, at most, a few thousand people, who would know those candidates for office personally, was as far as they would trust the inherently corruptible democratic system. It was called the people’s house. But U.S. Senators would be chosen by State Assemblies and Legislatures, composed of people who would know the candidates they are voting for, and the President and Vice President would be chosen by electors, themselves chosen by the people because these electors would be knowledgable of and conversant with the likely candidates to head the U.S. government.

High public office could no longer be bought and sold when office holders are chosen by those who know the issues, know the candidates, and who themselves, are seeking no private benefit from the government. We should be choosing such electors on the basis of these qualifications, in their own names, and not the names of people who want to grab the power of government for themselves.

]]> By: mvymvy http://libertymaven.com/2008/11/03/everyone-votes-for-jane-and-joe-schmoe-for-president-on-tuesday/2954/comment-page-1/#comment-1674 mvymvy Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:30:32 +0000 http://libertymaven.com/?p=2954#comment-1674 The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections. In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide. 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 would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. 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). The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

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 would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

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).

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

]]>