<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: American Politics: Get to Know Them	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://yellowscene.com/2014/11/05/american-politics-get-to-know-them/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://yellowscene.com/2014/11/05/american-politics-get-to-know-them/</link>
	<description>North Metro Diversions</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2014 17:21:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: otto		</title>
		<link>https://yellowscene.com/2014/11/05/american-politics-get-to-know-them/#comment-4152</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[otto]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2014 19:20:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://yellowscene.com/?p=29999#comment-4152</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A survey of Colorado voters showed 68% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 79% among Democrats, 56% among Republicans, and 70% among independents.

By age, support was 83% among 18-29 year olds, 59% among 30-45 year olds, 71% among 46-65 year olds, and 66% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 77% among women and 58% among men.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.	
	
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. 
		
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
		
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders.  It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, 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.
			
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state&#039;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 among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently.  In virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 70-80% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. 
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.	
			
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states (including Colorado) with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
					
NationalPopularVote]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A survey of Colorado voters showed 68% overall support for a national popular vote for President.</p>
<p>Support was 79% among Democrats, 56% among Republicans, and 70% among independents.</p>
<p>By age, support was 83% among 18-29 year olds, 59% among 30-45 year olds, 71% among 46-65 year olds, and 66% for those older than 65.</p>
<p>By gender, support was 77% among women and 58% among men.</p>
<p>The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.	</p>
<p>Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. </p>
<p>The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.</p>
<p>The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders.  It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.</p>
<p>The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, 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.</p>
<p>In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state&#8217;s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). </p>
<p>Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently.  In virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 70-80% range or higher. &#8211; in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.<br />
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.	</p>
<p>The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states (including Colorado) with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.</p>
<p>NationalPopularVote</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: otto		</title>
		<link>https://yellowscene.com/2014/11/05/american-politics-get-to-know-them/#comment-4151</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[otto]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2014 19:18:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://yellowscene.com/?p=29999#comment-4151</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers.  It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. 

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the &quot;canvas&quot;) in what is called a &quot;Certificate of Ascertainment.&quot; They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each.  The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.

With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state&#039;s or district’s electoral votes.  

There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector&#039;s own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.  The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors). 

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.  This has occurred in 4 of the nation&#039;s 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections.  The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore&#039;s lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens. 
	
During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win.  They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected.  Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state&#039;s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters.  10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind. 
	
80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That&#039;s more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans.
 	
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers.  It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. </p>
<p>Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the &#8220;canvas&#8221;) in what is called a &#8220;Certificate of Ascertainment.&#8221; They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each.  The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.</p>
<p>With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state&#8217;s or district’s electoral votes.  </p>
<p>There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector&#8217;s own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.  The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. </p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors). </p>
<p>Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.  This has occurred in 4 of the nation&#8217;s 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections.  The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore&#8217;s lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.</p>
<p>The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens. </p>
<p>During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win.  They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected.  Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.</p>
<p>The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state&#8217;s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters.  10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind. </p>
<p>80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That&#8217;s more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans.</p>
<p>Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
