Thursday, June 09, 2011

To Take California in 2012, the GOP MUST Enroll in The Electoral College

(As we are in  the June Fund Drive for the Valley, please help by hitting the Tip Jar for $300 -- Thank you)

Election 2012 is coming and California's 55 Electoral votes are up for grabs!

There are many ways of taking California, and going through the Popular vote only is not one of them.

According to Shawn Steel (h/t for noting this), there are Republicans testifying that the Electoral College is outdated and not useful.

Let me say a few words to those Republicans who think that:


Here is the article from Shawn Steel, in the Washington Examiner:

NPV would replace the state-by-state electoral system with the direct election of the president by guaranteeing an Electoral College majority to the popular vote winner. This would be accomplished by convincing states to enact legislation binding them to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner – even if that candidate fails to carry the state.

Once the number of states enacting NPV laws have at least 270 electoral votes among them, they will have imposed de facto direct presidential election on the rest of the country. So far, eight states, representing 77 electoral votes, have enacted NPV laws.

NPV was birthed from the womb of the Left and is being financed by Tom Golisano, a billionaire who supported John Kerry for president and previously spent $93 million on three campaigns for New York Governor as the nominee of the Independence Party (which he created).

Golisano is using his vast wealth to employ GOP lobbyists and politicians to sell this liberal brainchild to Republicans (he doesn’t need to convince liberals). Some simple online research of the issue makes clear that Golisano is bankrolling on extensive PR campaign targeting Republicans.

In my home state of California, NPV is being carried by the Assembly Republican Caucus chairman.
What would possess any Republican leader to propound a scheme so clearly contrary to the Founding Fathers’ constitutional design?

In my state of California, is justified to Republicans with complaints that we are “taken for granted” by presidential campaigns that in 2008 raised $150 million here but spent a scant $28,000, and promised National Popular Vote will magically make us relevant again.

What we aren’t told is how NPV will restore a state GOP that is shut out of every statewide office, or why future presidential campaigns will spend more of their finite funds on California’s very expensive media markets, rather than push for a popular vote majority in less expensive states – and still get California’s 55 electoral votes under NPV rules.

Here's the thing to keep in mind, California 55 Electoral Votes is our Pandorica.  If we don't stand up for the Electoral College now, we will lose in EVERY election thereafter.

The simple reason to keep the Electoral College is because it is keep all the states in play during a Presidential year.  California has the most Electoral votes, and if CAGOP and RPLAC are funded, the Presidential candidates will fight here in the Fall.  It allows the small states to remain in play.

Most Cities don't vote to the Right (yet); If Republicans give up the Electoral College, we give up the voting rights to Zombie Voters (seen in Chicago, and other major population centers). 

If you are a Presidential candidate, the Electoral College is the way to go - our Founders were smarter then our current set of leaders. This is the same group of people who want to get rid of the US Senate, the Filibuster and whatever does not work when Democrats lose.

No, no and no!

And this video shows how we must stand up against the faddish tides of the NPV. Watch and learn:

The Electoral College is our Pandorica, defend it with everything we have!

My question: Why are Republicans trying to sell out the Founders on Electoral Politics?

Bookmark and Share


  1. Anonymous1:21 PM PDT

    The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. 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, like California. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

    Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. California is ignored. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign,, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

    2/3rds of the states and people, including California, have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

    Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states, like California, are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

  2. Anonymous1:22 PM PDT

    Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: "I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives, it is good for California, and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
    It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.

    National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."

  3. Anonymous1:25 PM PDT

    Now, small states are not and will not be in play. Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

  4. Anonymous1:26 PM PDT

    The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

  5. Anonymous1:28 PM PDT

    The presidential election system we have today is NOT in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

    Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution — "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."

    The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

    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, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    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 entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It 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. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method.

  6. Anonymous1:29 PM PDT

    Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former Iowa Governor Chet Culver (D) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.

    Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

    Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote " include:

    Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

    James Brulte is a Republican who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

    Joseph Griffo has been a Republican New York State Senator since 2007.

    Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

    Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

    Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appoint¬ed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

    And just to put things in context . . .
    The U.S. House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment in 1969 for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and contemporary vice-presidential candidates such as Bob Dole and Walter Mondale.

  7. Anonymous1:31 PM PDT

    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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed iin 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%, and VT -- 75%; 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%.

    By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

    Alaska (3) -- 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters
    Arkansas (6) -- 71% (R), 79% (Independents).
    California (55)– 61% (R), 74% (I)
    Colorado (9) -- 56% (R), 70% (I).
    Connecticut (7) -- 67% (R)
    Delaware (3) -- 69% (R), 76% (I)
    DC (3) -- 48% (R), 74% of (I)
    Idaho(4) - 75% (R)
    Florida (29) -- 68% (R)
    Iowa (6) -- 63% (R)
    Kentucky (8) -- 71% (R), 70% (I)
    Maine (4) - 70% (R)
    Massachusetts (11) -- 54% (R)
    Michigan (16) -- 68% (R), 73% (I)
    Minnesota (10) -- 69% (R)
    Mississippi (6) -- 75% (R)
    Nebraska (5) -- 70% (R)
    Nevada (5) -- 66% (R)
    New Hampshire (4) -- 57% (R), 69% (I)
    New Mexico (5) -- 64% (R), 68% (I)
    New York (29) - 66% (R), 78% Independence, 50% Conservative
    North Carolina (15) -- 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), 80% (I)
    Ohio (18) -- 65% (R)
    Oklahoma (7) -- 75% (R)
    Oregon (7) -- 70% (R), 72% (I)
    Pennsylvania (20) -- 68% (R), 76% (I)
    Rhode Island (4) -- 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), 78% (I),
    South Dakota (3) -- 67% (R)
    Utah (6) -- 66% (R)
    Vermont (3) -- 61% (R)
    Virginia (13) -- 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 54% conservative (R)
    Washington (12) -- 65% (R)
    West Virginia (5) -- 75% (R)
    Wisconsin (10) -- 63% (R), 67% (I)
    Wyoming (3) –66% (R), 72% (I)


Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.

There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.

Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.

Write! History will remember your words!


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...