Thursday, March 1, 2007

Explanation of National Popular Vote Bill – Rebutted

NationalPopulerVote.org is the organization leading the effort to pass the National Popular Vote Agreement between the States. In addition to a 646 page book, they provide 1-sentence, 3-sentence, and 400-word descriptions of the agreement. Here are equivalent rebuttals. See http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php

1-Sentence Description
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia will win the Presidency.

1-Sentence Rebuttal
The National Popular Vote bill would magnify the distortion caused by errors, voter suppression, disenfranchisement, fraud, and court challenges to the election leaving the Supreme Court as the only nine votes that would decide presidential elections.

3-Sentence Description
Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

3-Sentence Rebuttal
Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, certify election results, monitor the process, and install partisan election officials to block attempts by the public to vote and suppress attempts to determine the actual election winner. These officials can, at any time change (as several have frequently changed), their state laws concerning eligibility to vote, the audit process, the recount process, refuse access to ballots, and destroy ballots. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, as certified by a variety of partisan election officials in each state.

(400 Word Description with Annotated Rebuttal in 1st Commnet)

1 comment:

BlastFromGlast said...

400-Word Description – with Annotated Rebuttal

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency. [The National Popular Vote bill would magnify the distortion caused by errors, voter suppression, disenfranchisement, fraud, and court challenges to the election, leaving the Supreme Court as only nine votes that would decide presidential elections.]

The current system of electing the President has several shortcomings—all stemming from the winner-take-all rule that awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state. [The current system of electing the President has several shortcomings—many stemming from the variety of rules in each state and the partisan nature of the highest election officials and their power to suppress the vote and virtually eliminate the transparency needed to determine the integrity of the election.]

Under the winner-take-all rule, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns of voters of states that they cannot possibly win or lose. [Under the proposed National winner-take-all rule (a.k.a. National Popular Vote), presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns of voters of demographics, regions, cities, or states in which they cannot significantly increase their votes.]

A major shortcoming of the current system is that voters in two thirds of the states are effectively disenfranchised in presidential elections because candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Presidential candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their advertising money and campaign visits in just five states, and over 99% of their advertising money in just 16 states. [A major shortcoming of the proposed system is that voters in all states are effectively disenfranchised in presidential elections because of fraud, error, and suppression in other states. With the National Popular Vote fraud, error, and suppression in every state offers enhanced opportunity to have the election result vary from the intention of the majority.]

The number of battleground states has been shrinking for many decades. The spectator states in presidential elections include 7 of the nation’s 11 most populous states (California, Texas, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Georgia), 12 of the 13 least populous states (all but New Hampshire); and a majority of the medium-sized states. [Under the National Popular Vote, the number of battleground states for fraud, suppression, and error will dramatically expand to 50 plus the District of Columbia. This will also expand the battleground for court challenges to the election.]

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. A shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the last 12 presidential elections. [Another shortcoming of the proposed system is that a candidate can win the Presidency by a simple arithmetic error, voter suppression, or fraudulent suppressed count in a single state. Several errors in the last two presidential elections might have resulted in a different winner if reasonable recount and transparency provisions were in place. A single controversy resulted in a Supreme Court election decision. Such problems and potential court challenges would be magnified with the National Popular Vote.]

The Founding Fathers gave the states exclusive and plenary (complete) control over the manner of awarding of their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Forty-eight states award all of their electoral votes according to the “winner-take-all” rule, whereas Maine and Nebraska award some of their electoral votes by congressional districts. [The Founding Fathers got many things right. Intended or not, the Electoral College now provides protection of the voters in each state from errors, suppression and fraud in other states]

Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). . [The National Popular Vote bill would magnify the distortion caused by errors, voter suppression, disenfranchisement fraud, and court challenges to the election leaving the Supreme Court as only vote that would decide elections. The actual bill does not say “identical form”; it says “substantially the same form”. Once the bill is enacted expect court challenges in several states putting into question the issue of the actual number of electoral college votes covered.]

70% of the public has long supported nationwide election of the president. [The public has long trusted in the electoral process, Yet now many of the public, scientists, politicians, and leading non-partisan groups doubt the integrity of the election process, based on the partisan actions by election officials along with the implementation of new voting equipment and procedures which are not transparent and bring the integrity of the whole process into question.]