tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3497827334014215158.post4446482214274668713..comments2024-02-02T18:29:43.274-08:00Comments on A New Anti-Federalist: Make Every Vote Equal. Really? Anti-Federalisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17486002269695725212noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3497827334014215158.post-37672403431897022032013-03-06T21:09:32.829-08:002013-03-06T21:09:32.829-08:00Hey,Toto,do you also believe if you click your hee...Hey,Toto,do you also believe if you click your heels three times you will fly back to Kansas? I stand by my argument: If you want this "reform," fine. But don't confuse your "reform" with anything more than it is: Just another electoral scheme which will replace current inequities with other inequities. Anti-Federalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17486002269695725212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3497827334014215158.post-76315630846066652582013-03-05T14:37:28.553-08:002013-03-05T14:37:28.553-08:00The National Popular Vote bill preserves the const...The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. 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.<br /><br />Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters 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.totohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12247335901450384827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3497827334014215158.post-91856727568235975982013-03-05T14:35:12.831-08:002013-03-05T14:35:12.831-08:00With National Popular Vote, big cities would not g...With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. <br />The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the U.S. and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15%. <br /> <br />Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.<br /><br />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 OH and FL.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and 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 VT or WY, or for a Republican to try it in WY or VT.<br /> <br />Even in CA 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 CA 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 CA, it can hardly control a nationwide election. <br /> <br />In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in CA. <br /><br />Similarly, Republicans dominate TX politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston. <br /><br />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., NY, IL, MI, PA, and MA) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states. <br /><br />With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.<br /> <br />Candidates would need 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 waitress mom voters in OH.<br /> <br />With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.<br /><br />The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.<br /> <br />In the 2012 campaign, “Much of the heaviest spending has not been in big cities with large and expensive media markets, but in small and medium-size metropolitan areas in states with little individual weight in the Electoral College: Cedar Rapids and Des Moines in Iowa (6 votes); Colorado Springs and Grand Junction in Colorado (9 votes); Norfolk and Richmond in Virginia (13 votes). Since the beginning of April, four-fifths of the ads that favored or opposed a presidential candidate have been in television markets of modest size.”<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/<br />totohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12247335901450384827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3497827334014215158.post-44026890413259461252013-03-05T14:28:59.363-08:002013-03-05T14:28:59.363-08:00The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the...The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). <br /><br />Every vote everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. <br /><br />Elections wouldn't be about winning states. <br /><br />Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. <br /><br />In the 2012 election, only 9 states and their voters mattered under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Those 9 states determined the election. Candidates did not care about 80% of the voters- voters-in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning was even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.<br /><br />Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.<br /><br />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 recent 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. <br /> <br />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 with 132 electoral votes -- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.<br /><br />NationalPopularVote<br />totohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12247335901450384827noreply@blogger.com