Don't Let the GA Legislature Pass a National Popular Vote
The U.S. Constitution provides a unique set of checks and
balances so that one state does not have more power than another in the
Electoral College process of selecting the President and Vice-President. It created a republic where the rights of the
minority are protected, not a democracy.
The National Popular Vote Compact (which is being pitched to
legislators in all states across the nation) is an agreement between the compact
states which mandates that the compact state throw their electors in with all
of the other compact states for whichever presidential candidate gets the most
votes, regardless of how the voters in each state cast their ballots.
NPV is an end-run around the U.S. Constitution that
established the Electoral College as the most balanced way to elect U.S.
presidents and vice presidents.
If the National Popular Vote movement attains 270 electoral
votes, the Electoral College process would be misdirected, and less populated
states would become less important, perhaps irrelevant, in presidential
elections.
Currently, ten states and the District of Columbia have
passed the NPV agreement. As a result, the NPV movement has 165 electoral
votes. Currently, five Republican states, including Georgia, have pending NPV
legislation. If all five pass, the NPV movement would acquire 55 additional
electoral votes for a total of 220, only 50 votes shy of the 270 needed to
divert the outcome of presidential elections. Read the Georgia bill here: HB 929.
[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122930124441705413]
Other articles:
The Heritage Foundation:
Destroying The Electoral College: The Anti-Federalist National Popular
Vote Scheme by Hans von Spakovsky [http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/10/destroying-the-electoral-college-the-anti-federalist-national-popular-vote-scheme]
Wall Street Journal:
It's Time to Junk the Electoral College by Jonathan Soros Chairman of
Soros Fund Management [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122930124441705413]
Townhall: Breaking
the Constitution – National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
[http://m.townhall.com/columnists/hankadler/2014/05/03/breaking-the-constitution--national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-n1832757/page/full]
American Thinker:
Countering the National Popular Vote Initiative
[http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/10/countering_the_national_popular_vote_initiative.html]
Washington Times: NRC
stomps Electoral College switch [http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/5/rnc-nixes-national-popular-vote-initiative/]
The Weekly Standard:
George Soros Supports the Tea Party?
[http://www.weeklystandard.com/george-soros-supports-the-tea-party/article/590271]
Reasons to Keep the Electoral College As Is
Five densely populated states – California, Florida,
Illinois, New York, and Texas – with residents totaling 115,863,717 (which is
over 1/3 of the U.S. population of 313,281,717) would control presidential
elections if NPV is implemented. Five
sparsely populated states – Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South
Dakota – have fewer than a million residents each. Altogether, the residents of
those five states total only 3,339,406, and would become insignificant in
presidential elections. The five densely
populated states outnumber the five sparsely populated states 34 to 1. NPV presents a HUGE, INSURMOUNTABLE
disadvantage to residents of less populated states. The Electoral College levels the playing
field for all states in presidential elections.
The NPV movement changes the rules and muddies that playing field.
ACTION ITEM: Contact one or more of the Committee members
below and ask them to reject this bill.
Message: Vote NO on H.B. 929 and keep it in committee. Under
the national popular vote system, the densely populated states would ALWAYS
control the outcome of presidential elections. Less populated states would be
powerless to change the outcome.
Rep. John Meadows [mailto:john.meadows@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5141
Chairman
Rep. Brett Harrell [mailto:brett.harrell@house.ga.gov] 404.656.0254 Vice Chair
Rep. Richard Smith [mailto:richard.smith@house.ga.gov] 404.656.6831 Secretary
Rep. Stacey Abrams [mailto:stacey.abrams@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5058
Rep. Mandi Ballinger [mailto:mandi.ballinger@house.ga.gov] 404.656.0254
Rep. Tommy Benton [mailto:tommy.benton@house.ga.gov] 404.463.3793
Rep. Jon Burns [mailto:jon.burns@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5052
Rep. Sharon Cooper [mailto:sharon.cooper@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5069
Rep. Katie Dempsey [mailto:katie.dempsey@house.ga.gov] 404.463-2247
Rep. Tom Dickson [mailto:tom.dickson@house.ga.gov] 404.463.2247
Rep. Karla Drenner [mailto:karla.drenner@house.ga.gov] 404.656.0202
Rep. Earl Ehrhart
[mailto:earl.ehrhart@house.ga.gov] 404.463.2247
Rep. Stacey Evans [mailto:stacey.evans@house.ga.gov] 404.656.6372
Rep. Barry Fleming [mailto:barry.fleming@house.ga.gov] 404.656.0152
Rep. Rich Golick [mailto:rich.golick@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5943
Rep. Gerald Greene [mailto:gerald.greene@house.ga.gov] 404.656.0202
Rep. Matt Hatchett
[mailto:matt.hatchett@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5025
Rep. Carolyn Hugley
[mailto:carolyn.hugley@house.ga.gov]
404.656.5058
Rep. Mack Jackson [mailto:mack.jackson@house.ga.gov] 404.656.0314
Rep. Jan Jones [mailto:jan.jones@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5072
Rep. David Knight [mailto:david.knight@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5099
Rep. Greg Morris [mailto:greg.morris@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5115
Rep. Butch Parrish [mailto:larry.parrish@house.ga.gov] 404.463.2247
Rep. Allen Peake [mailto:allen.peake@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5132
Rep. Jay Powell [mailto:jay.powell@house.ga.gov]
404.656.7855
Rep. Alan Powell [mailto:alan.powell@house.ga.gov] 404.463.3793
Rep. Matt Ramsey [mailto:matt.ramsey@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5024
Rep. Tom Rice [mailto:tom.rice@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5912
Rep. Carl Rogers [mailto:carl.rogers@house.ga.gov] 404.656.7855
Rep. Terry Rogers [mailto:terry.rogers@house.ga.gov] 404.651.7737
Rep. Ed Setzler [mailto:ed.setzler@house.ga.gov] 404.656.7857
Rep. Barbara Sims [mailto:barbara.sims@house.ga.gov] 404.656.7857
Rep. Lynn Smith [mailto:lynn.smith@house.ga.gov] 404.656.7149
Rep. Calvin Smyre [mailto:calvin.smyre@house.ga.gov] 404.656.0116
Rep. Ron Stephens [mailto:ron.stephens@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5111
Rep. Tom Weldon [mailto:tom.weldon@house.ga.gov] 404.656.5105
Rep. Wendell Willard
[mailto:wendell.willard@house.ga.gov]
404.656.5125
Rep. Coach Williams
[mailto:coach.williams@house.ga.gov]
404.656.0202
The National Popular Vote would further destroy Georgia's
sovereignty by breaking the balance of power between large states and small
states. Remember that HB 929, the
National Popular Vote, would mean that the most populous states would elect the
president and that means California and New York would decide your
president. Contact these representatives
today.
In defense of liberty, Field Searcy
P.S. Spread the word by forwarding this email to your
network and post the memes (graphics) in this email on Facebook and Twitter.
http://email.indefenseofliberty.tv/t/r-fb-vukdytd-irjhdulyli-s/ http://email.indefenseofliberty.tv/t/r-tw-vukdytd-irjhdulyli-g/
Source:http://email.indefenseofliberty.tv/t/ViewEmail/r/C6922B6FFB1465F42540EF23F30FEDED/E7F7BA7F7CECA9F481176E9AA71FFAE9
A survey of Georgia voters showed 74% overall support for the idea that the President should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
ReplyDeleteBy political affiliation, support for a national popular vote for President was 75% among Republicans, 78% among Democrats, and 67% among others.
By gender, support was 80% among women and 68% among men.
By age, support was 68% among 18-29 year olds, 77% among 30-45 year olds, 74% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.
NationalPopularVote
The U.S. Constitution does not ensure that one state does not have more power than another in the Electoral College.
ReplyDeleteUnable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
“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 presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, 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 states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, Georgia, like 37 other states, has been politically irrelevant in the presidential general-election campaigns.
Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Colorado (9) ,Nevada (6), Iowa (6) and New Hampshire (4) will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.
More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.
Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
The predictability of the winner of the state you live in determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!
ReplyDeleteA constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.
ReplyDeleteGuaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes would not make us a pure democracy.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, 24 of the 27 least populated states ARE politically irrelevant in presidential general elections. They could not BECOME less important in presidential elections.
ReplyDeleteIn 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.
Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
The political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
ReplyDeleteIn 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826
To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.
ReplyDeleteThe National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressman John Buchanan (R–Alabama), and former Senators David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).
Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)
Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”
On February 4, 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the National Popular Vote bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the National Popular Vote bill.
On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28–18 margin.
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 National Popular Vote plan would not help either party over the other.