Norm Hughes~
Here is a link to an article on NPV written by Virginia National Committeeman Morton Blackwell who nominated Saul for National Chair and stuck with him through six ballots, but was so concerned about Saul's national commitment to the NPV that he wrote this research paper and pushed a resolution through the National Committee opposed to NPV. As a result, Saul has been marginalized on the RNC and is not providing conservative leadership there. I do not have any particular problem with Saul but I also do not recall any efforts when he was state GOP chair to build the conservative movement. He did attend one Right To Work Task Force meeting but has not come back or participated in our efforts. I hope that, win or lose, Saul will eventually engage with and support our conservative movement. He has a lot of talent we could benefit by. With Dave Agema, we have a committed and proven conservative soldier.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Dave Agema is trying to stay positive but Saul's charges about alleged Agema lobbying (how does a legislator do that? Saul's web site says he directed lobbyists in 40 states) does not tell you that Saul sold Dave a bill of goods on NPV . Dave did co-sponsor legislation under the misunderstandings Saul gave him but you will note the bill was not even introduced in this session and Dave and the original sponsor are now unalterably opposed to NPV, which is really a liberal scheme to replace our republic with a "democracy". The NPV Compact would require Michigan electors to vote for whomever got the national popular plurality regardless of how Michigan voters expressed their choice. This would allow a limited number of big states to decide the presidency, a fear the Founders specifically worked to avoid. My biggest concern is that any political consultant is a soldier of fortune whose first interest is his pocketbook. In this instance the economic gain of backing a liberal proposal outweighed the Michigan Republican Party's best interest. UOur national committee representatives should be free to represent the grass roots as their first priority.
Feel free to send this information to your fellow delegate(s).
Here is a link to an article on NPV written by Virginia National Committeeman Morton Blackwell who nominated Saul for National Chair and stuck with him through six ballots, but was so concerned about Saul's national commitment to the NPV that he wrote this research paper and pushed a resolution through the National Committee opposed to NPV. As a result, Saul has been marginalized on the RNC and is not providing conservative leadership there. I do not have any particular problem with Saul but I also do not recall any efforts when he was state GOP chair to build the conservative movement. He did attend one Right To Work Task Force meeting but has not come back or participated in our efforts. I hope that, win or lose, Saul will eventually engage with and support our conservative movement. He has a lot of talent we could benefit by. With Dave Agema, we have a committed and proven conservative soldier.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Dave Agema is trying to stay positive but Saul's charges about alleged Agema lobbying (how does a legislator do that? Saul's web site says he directed lobbyists in 40 states) does not tell you that Saul sold Dave a bill of goods on NPV . Dave did co-sponsor legislation under the misunderstandings Saul gave him but you will note the bill was not even introduced in this session and Dave and the original sponsor are now unalterably opposed to NPV, which is really a liberal scheme to replace our republic with a "democracy". The NPV Compact would require Michigan electors to vote for whomever got the national popular plurality regardless of how Michigan voters expressed their choice. This would allow a limited number of big states to decide the presidency, a fear the Founders specifically worked to avoid. My biggest concern is that any political consultant is a soldier of fortune whose first interest is his pocketbook. In this instance the economic gain of backing a liberal proposal outweighed the Michigan Republican Party's best interest. UOur national committee representatives should be free to represent the grass roots as their first priority.
Feel free to send this information to your fellow delegate(s).
Posts
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, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole.
ReplyDeleteOn June 7, 2011, the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47–13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21–11. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17–7.
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 . . . , 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."
Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote's National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), and David Durenberger (R–MN) and former congressman John Buchanan (R–AL).
Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."
Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote " http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ 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 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.
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 appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.
A survey of Michigan voters showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
ReplyDeleteSupport was 73% among independents, 78% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.
By gender, support was 86% among women and 59% among men.
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. Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
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 National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
The electors now are 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.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a representative democracy, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
NationalPopularVote
This clearly indicates how media driven the populous is and the protection of a
DeleteRepublic has to counter such propaganda. We are not a one Ste Nation, but a 50 Nation Republic.
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes!
ReplyDeleteBut the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (TX, FL, OH, NC, and GA) and six "blue" states (CA, NY, IL, PA, MI, and NJ). 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 (TX and FL) 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.
If NPV were to be held Constitutional, it would result in a few metropolitan areas electing who will be president. You site how they offset each other right now, but that will not be the case after the electoral college has been destroyed. You are operating under the unconstitutional concept that a State is not sovereign and that is why the electoral college exists, to protect the sovereignty of the States and from what the attempt of NPV is, democratic dictation by populous, not by States.
ReplyDeleteWith the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.
ReplyDeleteThe Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (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, ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, in 2012 will not reach out to about 76% 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.
More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
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."
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a representative democracy, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as soccer mom voters in Ohio.
The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
ReplyDeleteThe National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures 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 College votes from the enacting states. That majority of Electoral College 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.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone 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).
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
Kevin Rex Heine
ReplyDeleteBecause I couldn't have said it better myself, I wanted to share with you an e-mail that I received from State Representative Tom McMillin a couple of hours ago. Saul's recent email claimed that he wasn't a lobbyist or a political consultant. To me, that sounds like someone saying, "It depends on what the meaning of is, is." http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2012/5/16/23209/8300
Why Michigan Conservatives need Dave Agema's leadership sent to the RNC:
ReplyDelete...Michigan RNC member Saul Anuzis, the leader of the small group on the national commnittee supporting the popular vote change, told The Washington Times that he and five others on the national committee had “expressed that support and at least 20 were open and undecided, but not willing to take any hits for something they didn’t care that much about.”
Mr. Anuzis saw a bright side in the resounding defeat of his cause.
“It’s(NPV) now on everyone’s radar and that’s good,” Mr. Anuzis said in an email after having left the Marriott Tampa Waterside ballroom before the vote on the resolution, telling people on his way out that he had a plane to catch.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/5/rnc-nixes-national-popular-vote-initiative/