What is Agenda 21?

Saturday, February 4, 2012

National Popular Vote Initiative

Whereas the National Popular Vote Initiative is an attempt to amend the United State’s Constitution without going through the amendment process; and 

Whereas the National Popular Vote Initiative is a strategy to thwart and nullify the concepts and principles underlying the Electoral college; 

Be it resolved that the Constitution Party of Pennsylvania hereby declares its opposition to the National Popular Vote Initiative and opposes any requirement that Pennsylvania’s Electors in the Electoral College vote for a presidential candidate who did not receive the highest vote count in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the immediately preceding Presidential popular vote election.

2 comments:

toto said...

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

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.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were 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 for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states 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.

A survey of Pennsylvania voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.

By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.

NationalPopularVote

Joe Murphy said...

I disagree that every vote would vote, more than it does now. Why should Pennsylvania elect candidate "B" only to give its electoral votes to candidate "A", because the rest of the country did. How is that a better system? Why would a state want to give away its electoral votes to someone they did not chose. I do not believe that the people have really looked into how this would work. It sounds good to say the person with the most votes wins(which almost always occurs anyway)but its not how our system is supposed to be run.