THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

I KEEP TRYING TO GET THROUGH TO PEOPLE THAT THEIR VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT REALLY DOESN'T COUNT AS LONG AS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE EXISTS. CANDIDATES CAN FAIL TO GET THE MOST VOTES IN THE NATIONWIDE POPULAR VOTE IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND STILL WIN THE ELECTION. THIS OCCURRED IN 1876, 1888 AND 2000.

NOW, NORTH CAROLINA, BACK IN 2000 VOTED IN A PENALTY OF $10,000.00 IF AN ELECTOR VOTES AGAINST THE POPULAR VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT IN THAT STATE. 29 OTHER STATES ALSO HAVE GONE TO SUCH MEASURES TO INSURE THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN, BUT THERE ARE STILL 20 STATES OUT THERE THAT DON'T HAVE SUCH A POLICY AND THEY CAN STILL CAUSE AN UPSET IN THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM TO ME IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHO MANY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE AND WHAT THEIR REAL AGENDA MAY BE. THEY MAY BE WILLING TO TAKE THE PENALTY TO ACCOMPLISH THE DESIRED EFFECT. ESPECIALLY, LET'S SAY, IF THE ULTIMATE PAY OFF WAS BIG ENOUGH. WHEN YOU HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIKE THE COLLEGE, IT LEAVES A LOT OF OPENINGS FOR VERY LUCRATIVE, HIGH LEVEL INTERESTS TO COME THROUGH THE DOOR. IF THE VOTE WAS TOTALLY DEPENDANT ON THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, THIS COULD NOT HAPPEN.

THESE DAYS, WITH ALL THE MANY CHANNELS OPEN TO THESE MEGA BILLIONS INTERESTED PARTIES, MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS CAN BE PUT TO WORK TO INFLUENCE THESE VOTERS WITHOUT ANYONE BEING THE WISER. BUT THEY COULDN'T'T DO IT WITH THE ENTIRE NATION. WITH THE SYSTEMS AVAILABLE TO US THESE DAYS, PROPERLY EMPLOYED AND PROTECTED, THE VOTE CAN VERY EASILY BE HANDLED IN SHORT ORDER.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THESE SAME MEGA BILLION DOLLAR INTERESTED PARTIES, CAN STILL HAVE AN EFFECT TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM ABOLISHING THE COLLEGE TO PROTECT THEIR CHANNELS. SO, I GUESS I'M PREACHING TO THE WIND, HUH?

OF COURSE THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, ISN'T IT?

Comments

[susan]

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 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.

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 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