Comment Re:Correcting a few misconceptions (Score 1) 922
Yes, some state legislators and governors will indeed need to be convinced ... ;)
The NPV legislation has already been introduced in CA, MO, IL, LA, NY, and CO, in some cases with bipartisan sponsors. It has passed the CO Senate and the CA Assembly. The CA Senate will vote on it in a few weeks, and it could be on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk by Labor Day. Sponsors have been lined up for another dozen states, and there should be bills in nearly all 50 states, many with bipartisan cosponsors, by January 2007. So it's moving.
Gallup polls since the 1940s have ALL shown majority support for direct election of the president. It's what the people want. And, governors surely know that being a "battleground" state is often fleeting: In 1960, there were 23 or so battleground states; today there are about a dozen, and different ones, too.
Here's a little thought experiment. Let's say we have no office of president in the United States, and a law is passed that says we'll now have a president who will be elected by an Electoral College system that gives some voters more power than others -- that rejects the "one person, one vote" principle that is a bedrock of modern democracy. Who would we assign more voting power to, and who would get less? People who live in cities? Farmers? Rich people? Poor people?
You see where this is going -- it's just preposterous for the United States of America to have a presidential election system in which not every vote is equal. No doubt someone has already posted the classic example, that each Wyoming elector is worth about 170,000 votes, but each California elector is equal to about 600,000 votes. Is it fair for a Wyoming voter to have that much more voting power than a Californian, simply based on where he or she lives? It's just silly, and arguments in defense of the Electoral College always overlook or downplay the inarguable fact that not every vote is equal.
It's long past time to remedy that undemocratic defect, either via the National Popular Vote plan or a constitutional amendment. Thanks for the thoughts. --B
The NPV legislation has already been introduced in CA, MO, IL, LA, NY, and CO, in some cases with bipartisan sponsors. It has passed the CO Senate and the CA Assembly. The CA Senate will vote on it in a few weeks, and it could be on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk by Labor Day. Sponsors have been lined up for another dozen states, and there should be bills in nearly all 50 states, many with bipartisan cosponsors, by January 2007. So it's moving.
Gallup polls since the 1940s have ALL shown majority support for direct election of the president. It's what the people want. And, governors surely know that being a "battleground" state is often fleeting: In 1960, there were 23 or so battleground states; today there are about a dozen, and different ones, too.
Here's a little thought experiment. Let's say we have no office of president in the United States, and a law is passed that says we'll now have a president who will be elected by an Electoral College system that gives some voters more power than others -- that rejects the "one person, one vote" principle that is a bedrock of modern democracy. Who would we assign more voting power to, and who would get less? People who live in cities? Farmers? Rich people? Poor people?
You see where this is going -- it's just preposterous for the United States of America to have a presidential election system in which not every vote is equal. No doubt someone has already posted the classic example, that each Wyoming elector is worth about 170,000 votes, but each California elector is equal to about 600,000 votes. Is it fair for a Wyoming voter to have that much more voting power than a Californian, simply based on where he or she lives? It's just silly, and arguments in defense of the Electoral College always overlook or downplay the inarguable fact that not every vote is equal.
It's long past time to remedy that undemocratic defect, either via the National Popular Vote plan or a constitutional amendment. Thanks for the thoughts. --B
