About the Blogger
Michael E. Newton is the author of The Path To Tyranny, Angry Mobs and Founding Fathers, and Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years.
Michael E. Newton now blogs at DiscoveringHamilton.com.
Videos
RSS Feed
-
Recent Posts
- Discovering the oldest known Alexander Hamilton document
- New Alexander Hamilton coming soon
- “Medicare For All” is more appealing when you hide the enormous tax increase
- Michael E. Newton on “Discovering the Earliest Known Records of Alexander Hamilton” and “A “Jest” Gone Wrong: Nicholas Cruger’s “Supposed Duel” on St. Croix”
- New Hamilton Discoveries to be Revealed on July 6
Categories
- $10 bill (1)
- AHTFY (14)
- Alexander Hamilton (55)
- American Revolution (25)
- Art (2)
- Author (14)
- Banking (2)
- big government (34)
- Book Reviews (1)
- Books (60)
- Capitalism (30)
- Charity (3)
- Civil Disobedience (4)
- Constitution (16)
- Crime (2)
- Crony Capitalism (2)
- Deficits (16)
- Democracy (5)
- Douglas Southall Freeman (1)
- Economics (66)
- Education (1)
- Elections (13)
- Environment (1)
- Federal Reserve (14)
- Federalism (10)
- Founding Fathers (25)
- George Washington (5)
- Global Government (1)
- Global Warming (6)
- Gold (8)
- Government spending (53)
- Guns (6)
- Hamilton musical (2)
- Health Care (10)
- History (63)
- Housing (1)
- Investments (4)
- Jobs (14)
- Kickstarter (2)
- Liberty (11)
- Mathematics (2)
- Minimum wage (5)
- Movies (1)
- Museums (1)
- Nanny State (1)
- Occupy Wall Street (4)
- Oil (5)
- Photos (5)
- politics (11)
- Quantitative Easing (8)
- Quotes (24)
- Redistribution (22)
- Regulation (11)
- Religion (4)
- Revolution (2)
- Socialism (18)
- Sovereign debt crisis (43)
- Stimulus spending (15)
- Taxes (43)
- Tea Party (7)
- Terrorism (1)
- The Path to Tyranny (1)
- Trade (8)
- tyranny (12)
- Uncategorized (8)
- Unemployment (12)
- Unintended consequences (16)
- Unions (4)
- War (1)
- Wikipedia (1)
- Writing (3)
- 2010 European sovereign debt crisis adam smith alexander hamilton American history American Revolution Aristotle Barack Obama Ben Bernanke big government Bond credit rating Books Business capitalism China constitution debt Deficit democracy Democratic Economic economics elections European Central Bank European Union Eurozone Federal government of the United States federalist papers Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System founding fathers George Washington germany Government Government debt Government of Ireland government spending greece Gross domestic product hamilton history income tax Inflation International Monetary Fund Ireland italy James Madison moodys New York New York City Obamacare plato Politics Polybius portugal president Quantitative easing Quotes Republican Rome socialism spain stimulus Tax taxation taxes Tea Party tyranny Tyrant unemployment United States United States Constitution US history Wall Street washington White House
Archives
- November 2017 (1)
- October 2017 (1)
- September 2017 (1)
- July 2017 (1)
- June 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (2)
- November 2016 (3)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (1)
- December 2015 (1)
- October 2015 (2)
- September 2015 (1)
- August 2015 (1)
- July 2015 (6)
- June 2015 (5)
- May 2015 (11)
- April 2015 (15)
- March 2015 (2)
- November 2014 (1)
- January 2014 (2)
- September 2013 (1)
- August 2013 (1)
- March 2013 (1)
- January 2013 (1)
- September 2012 (1)
- August 2012 (7)
- July 2012 (3)
- June 2012 (3)
- May 2012 (2)
- March 2012 (1)
- November 2011 (11)
- October 2011 (7)
- September 2011 (7)
- August 2011 (9)
- July 2011 (4)
- June 2011 (7)
- May 2011 (8)
- April 2011 (13)
- March 2011 (21)
- February 2011 (22)
- January 2011 (35)
- December 2010 (16)
- November 2010 (40)
- October 2010 (24)
- September 2010 (6)
- August 2010 (8)
- July 2010 (8)
- June 2010 (25)
Blog Roll
America's Best Choice
America's Best Work
Arkansas Conservative News
ARRA News Service
Blur Live Audio Archive Project
Cliff Ball, Author
Conservative Voices
Liberty Works
Maggie's Notebook
Manifest Liberty
Mark W. Taber
Mish's Global Economic Trend
Restored Works
The Giant Wakes
Ushanka
Wealth Alchemy
What Would The Founders Think?
Electoral College: What the Founders Thought
This entry was posted in Books, Constitution, History, Liberty and tagged American Revolution, constitution, founding fathers, Government. Bookmark the permalink.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election. Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter 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. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. 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. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
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. It does not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
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 in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, VT — 75%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 30 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 method) 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 method to award electoral votes.
The winner-take-all method is not 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 method (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 method.
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 method is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district — a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in 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.
A ’republican’ form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President).
The United States has a ’republican’ form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
If a ’republican’ form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a ’democratic’ method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the ’mob’ in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the ’mobs’ of the vast majority of states are ignored. 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.
The whole point of the electoral college was to have a different method of choosing President. Representatives are already democratically elected, so the Founders did not want another democratically elected official. Of course, Senators are now democratically elected, but they weren’t until 1913. We are moving more and more toward democracy, which is your goal of course. But the Founders opposed democracy for good reason. Read what they wrote about democracy.