This to me is nothing more than a populist move to destroy Electoral College. It ignores the US Constitution, so it’s not even LEGAL.
HB 1299, introduced March 4th of 2009 in Colorado’s General Assembly, currently sitting in the house to be read over by the “Colorado Lawmakers,” and is sponsored by:
HOUSE SPONSORSHIP
Kerr A., Benefield, Carroll T., Casso, Court, Curry, Ferrandino, Frangas, Green,
Hullinghorst, Kefalas, McCann, Middleton, Miklosi, Pommer, Rice, Scanlan, Schafer S.,
Solano, Todd, Vigil
SENATE SPONSORSHIP
Romer, Bacon, Groff, Veiga
This bill in short is seeking to eliminate the Electoral College. One of the bedrock principles that this nation was founded on, is UNDER ATTACK!!! Now this is nothing out of the ordinary, bills like this have been pushed and attempted in other states as well. The terrifying thing about this bill is that it very easily can happen. Colorado is so distracted by other things like the financial crisis, war… err OverSeas Contingency Operation blah blah blah…., American idol and other such things, this bill might actually pass. It’s insane.
This bill appeases a populist thought that the Electoral College is bad. The people that think this are either insanely ignorant and don’t know their history or they’re insane. The electoral college gives the States equality in the vote count in Presidential elections. If you are one of these, and really even if you’re not please read this articulated about the history and reasons for the Electoral College article:
William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director
FEC Office of Election Administration, Revised in 1992
I love this insight from a fellow blogger over at Politix Cartoons:
Probably the most egregious insult is that the people of Colorado actually voted overwhelming against this type of legislation in 2004 in the form of Amendment 36.
People intent on destroying the Electoral College have not stopped with the state of Colorado. What I find interesting, however, is that you won’t find them wanting to break up the Electoral votes of solidly blue states, such as California or New York. Why isn’t there a big rush to implement these same types of measures in the big blue states?
The biggest argument that proponents of this disaster proclaim is that “every vote should count.” However, purporting this argument will send one on a logical quagmire. For if they truly believed in the legitimacy of everybody’s vote, then they will have to accept the votes of 65% of Coloradans who voted against changing the Electoral College! Their motivation cannot logically be about the will of the people.
If you want to do something about this contact:
Mail
Bill Ritter, Governor
136 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203-1792
Phone (303) 866-2471
Fax (303) 866-2003
Email Governor’s spokesman evan.dreyer@state.co.us
April 10th, 2009 at 11:10 am
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. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. 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. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. 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.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:10 am
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 Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,512 state legislators in 48 states.
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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 25 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington, and both houses in California, Colorado, 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
April 10th, 2009 at 11:11 am
What the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution is “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.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.
In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:11 am
The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:12 am
68% OF COLORADO VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL
A survey of 800 Colorado voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 68% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 79% among Democrats, 56% among Republicans, and 70% among independents.
By age, support was 83% among 18-29 year olds, 59% among 30-45 year olds, 71% among 46-65 year olds, and 66% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 77% among women and 58% among men.
By race, support was 68% among whites (representing 81% of respondents), 75% among Hispanics ((representing 12% of respondents), 57% among African American (representing 4% of respondents), and 62% of Others (representing 4% of respondents).
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com