Monday, July 19, 2010

Nobody's Perfect: Massachusetts

Nobody's Perfect: Massachusetts. You would think that after Ted Kennedy's final demise from the shores of the Kennedy compound, and with the election of a younger truck-driving buck of a man, the state would come to its senses.

I expect too much.

Sadly, the populous of our good country is so stupid as to not know that getting rid of the electoral college means a quick road to tyranny...and that's exactly what some states are doing...including Massachusetts. (Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey?, and Washington, have already passed the National Vote act.)

You see, here's how it works: if all the voters of Massachusetts vote for, let's say, a Republican candidate, then the 12 electors would not have to support the people's vote for that Republican, but instead throw their votes to what the majority of America votes...which would mean...California would pick the next President of the United States forever more.

Hasta la Vista Untied

Insanity? Yes. The whole purpose of the electoral college was so that a smaller state without the population of the bigger states would actually have a say in things, and be represented equally in the halls of Congress.

Their votes would count.

But for years now our Presidents have been pushing the word...democracy, instead of Republic...for a good reason too. They know that the rule by majority always leads to dictatorship.

That's why the founders tried to develop a fairer more equal system with the electoral college.

Too bad that very important fact is NOT taught in any of our schools.

On the other hand, with elections now being decided by who can raise the most money, we are not a Republic anymore anyway. We all know it was George Soros, and Saudi Kings, who funded Obama's run for the Presidency.

The fact that our politicians spend millions of their own money to even run, tells you...we are NOT even close to a republic anymore at all. get rid of the electoral college?


This "majority rules crap" should not even be allowed. But, the people in power, want to stay there, so they are going in through the back doors, by getting each state to pass what they now call "The National Vote."

ARE WE NUTS? And this happening in Massachusetts, the heart and soul of the start of the Republic.

America is cutting her own head off, and putting it in the sand. I say, we give the state back to Canada.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amfortas reflects:

The 'Republic' seemed like a good idea at the time. The French Monarchy had fallen and so had many of the smaller European ones when Napoleon went on his rampage. The Colonists in the Americas 'thought' (haha) that the British Monarchy would fall.

It didn't.

The greedy few with money and power in the Colonies took advantage of the 'Revolutionary' urge sweeping the civilised world (the Russians did too) and suborned the people to a messy, destructive and quite unecessary War of Independance.

America could have been the most successful Constitutional Monarchy the world has ever seen with an hereditary 'King', quintessentially American, who would be above politics. He/she would represent and remind Americans of what it is to be American. Instead you have a monied usurper every four years, elected by his rich mates hell bent on turning the nation into their own personal fiefdom.

Over the course of its short history, much of its good intent and Constitutional Integrity have withered away. There was no King to protect it.

We have 'republicans' in Oz. They want to get rid of our impartial Monarch (who lives 12000 miles away and costs us nothing) and our constitution and replace her with an elected shonk, an Obamatron in the hands of political machine-men that they can rid themselves of when he does not do their biden and a new constitution that they can fiddle with and water down. They look to America as an example of how to have their way.

2:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all 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. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but now used 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.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Massachusetts and 12 of the 13 smallest states were NOT included. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and 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.

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, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

11:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

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 uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote), including current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

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. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in 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): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, 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 -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


11:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "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, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state 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, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.

In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.

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 current 48 state-by-state 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.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, 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 state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.

11:15 AM  
Blogger Joyanna Adams said...

I am just SO excited by these comments, I can't tell much!!!

And it deserves at lest another blog, but I've written Wednesdsy's already,so,god willing some time, I can make a good run of my rebuttal on Thursday or Friday.

I HOPE, you argue your case again...I'm still sticking with representative representation...and will try my best to present the reasons succintly and with humor...why.

Thanks! And come back!

8:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[url=]online Phen375[/url] are tablets that forbear abridge fuselage weight. One of these tabs has to be enchanted with fizzy water be illogical, almost 20 minutes ahead of a meal, twice a day.

2:20 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home