Vermont Legislature makes third try for presidential popular vote bill

Feb 16, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Burlington Free Press

Members of the Legislature are trying -- for the third time -- to enact a bill supporting the election of U.S. presidents by national popular vote.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 3 of3
mvymvy

Santa Clara, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 16, 2011
 
A survey of 800 Vermont voters conducted April 26, 2008 showed 75%25% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

By party, support is 86%14% among Democratic voters; 61%39% among Republicans, and 74%26% for Others.

By age, support is almost the same across all age groups. Specifically, support is 78%22% among 1829 year olds; 74%26% among 3045 year olds; 74%26% among 4665 year olds; and 74%24% among 65-and-older.

By gender, support is 82%18% among women and 67%33% among men.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.ph...
mvymvy

Santa Clara, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 16, 2011
 
Vermont has no influence in presidential elections now.

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 Vermont. 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. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population, like Vermont, and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. This will be more obscene than the already outrageous facts that in 2008,, 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 (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). 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 have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
mvymvy

Santa Clara, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 16, 2011
 
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 obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in 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 certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

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.

Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 3 of3
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••