I really want to thank Uncle Walt for his comment posted here.
He wrote to his State Senator, the man who is currently serving in "Sid Snyder's Seat" in Olympia.
Here is the response by Senator Brian Hatfield:
"The electoral college has already been change(sic) by Maine and Nebraska, which proportion by Congressional district. Because those states are small, few people are aware of the 'unlevel playing field' that is being created.
"If California proportioned by Congressional district, we'd NEVER elect another Democrat President. If Texas did it, the same could be said for Republicans. It's not about "taking away Washington's voice." It's about uniformity.
"If I could vote to force Maine and Nebraska to go back to the old way, or force ALL 50 STATES to proportion by Congressional district, I would. Unfortunately, we can't do that so the National Popular Vote compact is the only way we can get to uniformity and a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. "Frankly, I can't understand why others can't understand this argument. >> -BH"
Here is Uncle Walt's response to the e-mail he received from Senator Brian Hatfield:
"Perhaps I can explain why others "fail to understand" the arguments you put forth.
"The Electoral College is NOT about a 'level playing field' or 'uniformity'. It never was. Nor was it ever about the popular vote. I refer you to the Federalist Papers on the subject. In them, you will discover it was about putting a 'check and balance' on the popular vote. Basically, it was intended to prevent an unqualified, but charismatic, candidate from attaining office.
"Unfortunately, the Founders left the method of setting up the Electoral College to each state. Which, btw, is further proof that it was never intended to be about a 'level playing field' nor 'uniformity'.
"If the Founders had intended it to be about 'uniformity', they would have set the Electoral College up as a federal standard ... rather than leaving it up to each individual state how to run it."
"If they had intended it to be about a 'level playing field', they wouldn't have created it in the first place ... and left elections up to the popular vote."
I get the feeling that Senator Hatfield is trying to play this both ways. You've read the above, do you read a shift in meaning? "...it was never intended to be about a 'level playing field' nor 'uniformity'."
Then, "...we can't do that so the National Popular Vote compact is the only way we can get to uniformity and a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD."
So, what is it Senator? Maintain the advantage that remains with the States in their role in our Electoral College? Or, adoption of the National Popular Vote Compact?
It seems the Senator is advocating for a "level playing field."
So, thanks to Uncle Walt. But...what is really being said? (Or, hidden?)
(Corrected post, thanks for the clarification, UW.)
Friday Astoria Oregon Tea Party Meet-up
-
There's an "auto-start" video in the post below. Scroll down to hit pause.
I like the video so much that I had to have it. Hopefully, someday, video
provid...
2 hours ago
11 comments:
Actually, Guy ... the top portion was MY response to his email. HIS response to my original email was the bottom portion.
Sorry if that wasn't clear in my original posting of the messages.
Corrected.
Sorry...I will blame the mis-contruction here. The whole thing makes more sense, now, though.
.
Here is his response to my email, correcting him on the purpose of the Electoral College ...
You didn't respond to my main point. If this "hybrid" system continues, and evolves into a process that guarantees one side victory (and the other defeat) every four years, you don't have a problem with that?
My response back ...
Sorry, I did not see that as your main point. I gathered that your main point was to try and create a "uniform" Electoral College process among the states. I apologize for misreading your reply.
As to your question ... I could point out that I can find no signs of Maine/Nebraska "hybrid" system attempting to spread. But if I did, would we be any worse off than the current system which makes it virtually impossible for anybody other than a Democrat or Republican to hold higher office? I think not. Especially when one considers the fact that there are politicians on both sides of the aisle, who hold views more in line with the opposing party than their own. A growing number of people today view the Two-Party System as having two parties in name only.
As I stated before, a better solution ... if one must be made ... would be to divide the Electoral College votes (of the state) along the same percentage as the popular vote (in the state).
What I fail to comprehend is why ... if one wants to tie the Electoral College to the popular vote ... one can't do so with the state popular vote, rather than the national.
And his final reply ...
As long as every state did it the same, I'd be fine with that.
I notice that this ties in with your posts about brainwashing (my word, not yours) kids to believe they are part of "the collective". Once again, we are told to only think of ourselves as part of the national whole - not even separated by states.
It's scarey. Because once they get this, it's only a short matter of time until they want to look at who the world wants as our leader. After all, what better way to encourage globalism? And it's not like we don't have a precedent already. Look at how they rejoiced at the world's acceptance of Obama's candidacy.
The Founding Fathers did not anticipate, much less create or favor, our current system of electing the President.
In the debates of the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, there is no mention of the winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in their individual state). When the Founding Fathers went back to their states in 1789 to organize the nation’s first presidential election, only three state legislatures chose to employ the winner-take-all rule for awarding their state’s electoral votes. Each of the three states that used the winner-take-all rule in the first presidential election in 1789 repealed it by 1800 (and later re-adopted it).
The Founding Fathers intended that the Electoral College would consist of “wise men” who would deliberate on the choice of the President and select the best candidate. The Electoral College was patterned after ecclesiastical elections. For example, cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church (with lifetime appointments) deliberated in the College of Cardinals to choose the Pope. The Holy Roman Emperor was elected by a similar small and distinguished group of “electors.” In many kingdoms in Europe, a small group of “electors” would, on the death of the king, choose a new king from a pool consisting of designated members of the ruling family.
Famously, the Founding Fathers did not anticipate the emergence of political parties. In the debates of the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, there is no mention of a state’s presidential electors being mere “rubberstamps” for a pre-determined choice. Nonetheless, when George Washington declined to run for a third term in 1796, political parties immediately emerged. In 1796, both competing Federalist and anti-Federalist parties nominated their presidential candidate at the national meeting (a caucus of the party’s members of Congress). As soon as there were national nominees, virtually all the candidates for presidential elector made it known that they would be willing “rubberstamps” who would vote for their party’s nominee when the Electoral College met. All but one of the presidential electors in 1796 dutifully voted as expected. The expectation that presidential electors should “act” and not “think” was thus established in the 1796 election and has persisted to this day. Of the 21,915 electoral votes cast for President in the nation’s 55 presidential elections, only 11 were cast in an unexpected way.
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 debated the method of electing the President on 22 separate days and held 30 votes on the topic. During those debates, the Convention considered election by state governors, Congress, state legislatures, nationwide popular vote (which lost by one vote), and presidential electors.
Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person's vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the winner-take-all rule (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 "battleground" districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including North Carolina and California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would perpetuate the inequality of votes among states due to each state’s bonus of two electoral votes. It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
some fine discussion, but as a leader I have but one comment. Who with the most cash will win election 95 %.
Now I can offer you prosperity and wellness with no direct cost would you give me your vote? You'ld be stupid not to vote me in. However I can't do it. (four years wasted and now backward progress)
sad but true.
I kinda hate it when the Anonymous "pros" hit a website with instructive doggerel. Simply restating a premise doesn't really help to advance the arguments for a premise.
What is surprising to me is that we keep re-visiting Constitutional questions without a Constitutional process. Can I have my Constitutionally protected voting rights altered or limited by anything less than an amendment to the Constitution?
The supporters of this initiative believe they can. I would assert that they cannot. But that doesn't mean that attempts will not continue.
For those of you who have studied or worked in government, proposals to change the Constitution, from modification through the Amendment process to the wholesale replacement of the Constitution with a "new" Constitution, have been around since the adoption of our Constitution. For those of you who are new to the debate, one of the more influential books on the idea to throw out the old Constitution and replace it with a new, modern Constitution is Rexford Tugwell's The Emerging Constitution published in 1974.
Few read the book. But most of the Elites who posit a need for change refer to ideas in the work to justify their ideas. (That's the beauty of the Elite. They steal good ideas from dead guys without examining the value of those ideas.)
What has been taught in our colleges and universities has been derivative of the Tugwell work since its publication. Massive planning. Institutionalization of an Elite class.
The critics of the ideas promulgated by Tugwell and his adherents are given the "usual" treatment by those adherents. Typically, it is our intelligence that is called into question. Again, their criticism is based upon work they haven't read, and yet they question the intelligence of those who have read it.
The book is available, and prolly in stock at Powell's. Mebbe even at your local library, although I'm usually disappointed when I vist my local library.
But, just as no single, individual member of Congress read the Stimulus Bill before voting on it, no state legislator is going to read Tugwell. They feel it's an issue of Fairness. And, to accomodate their idea of fairness, they work to supplant the decision of the voters of Oregon with the decision made in major metropolitan areas in other, discrete states.
To be fair, we must disenfranchise.
Serially. That's their argument.
.
Anonymous (5:03pm) has obviously read the Federalist Papers. Anonymous (5:06 pm) has obviously not.
The Founding Geezers deliberately did not set us up as a total democracy. (Sometimes I think they foresaw people like Louisiana's Huey Long.) We are a Constitutional Republic.
Good as democracy is (better than the rest, as someone once said), it doesn't scale up indefinitely. Foremost among the flaws in that scaling-up is what we saw of ACORN. Then there's George Soros, pouring millions into defeating Bush. (At that rate, he'll be broke in a few hundred years.)
Does anybody remember conventions the way they were supposed to be? You never knew who the candidate was until it was all over. Sometimes they went on for days, for vote after vote, until someone finally emerged as the front-runner.
Nowadays, conventions are nothing more than self-congratulary victory parties.
This last election was nothing more than a Reality Show, where one contestant after another (Huckabee, Clinton, ...) got "voted off the island". And the most "popular" (not "qualified") was able to say, a little later, "I won. Now shut up".
Post a Comment