Sunday, November 28, 2010

WH 2012


If Mitt Romney is the nominee in 2012 I am not voting for him. I’d sooner right in Olympia Snowe. Even ignoring his stance on the 2nd Amendment, he’s not conservative. He’s too big-government. If the Obmamacare monstosity was repealed in 2013 by Congress, would President Romney even sign it? Would he promise in the campaign to sign the repeal law and then go back on his word? He's changed his mind about so many things to date...

If Mike Huckabee is the nominee, the same applies. I am not voting for him. He’s just a social conservative, like we need an election about that. He’s practically a Democrat, otherwise. Plus, he's slow on the uptake, ifn you know what I mean.

I don’t care if it’s their ‘turn.’ I’m not voting for Dole or McCain again.

I’d vote for Palin, but I don’t think nominating her is a great idea, the way things stand now. She’s been, perhaps permanently, tainted by establishment propaganda organs so she may very well alienate most independents and a good number of conservatives. There are lifelong conservative Republicans that would pull the lever for Obama rather than vote for Sarah.

Jeb Bush? He, objectively, may be alright. I don't know enough but what I know is decent. His big problem is he's not named Jeb Smith.

No Reagans appear on the horizon either. Jindal? No. Unpolished. Christie? His views on the 2nd are horrible, and while he looks great standing up to the right parasites, he hasn’t prevailed against them yet, and may not. Pawlenty? Still ho-hum. Newt? As radioactive as Palin, but not as attractive (and I'm not talking physically). I'd stay home instead of vote for any of them.

Third Party? What third party. The way the electoral college is set up, there ain't gonna be no third party. There will be 2 and maybe another party will come along to supplant one of the existing parties. Then there will be 2 again. Until the resurgent party eats one of the existing look for those two, the new and the dying, to just lose elections to the stable unbesieged party. So hope any transition is very fast if it's 'your' side.

People that think the Constitution is the greatest gift to mankind, ever, rather than an obstacle to their various rackets, may get a majority in 2012, but I’m pessimistic about the conservative/libertarian chances in the executive branch.


bluesun said...

Unfortunately... yes.

Chris said...

Yeah, there just aren't that many people that truly want to cut back (much less end) profligate government spending. For a fun read (albeit a fantasy for libertarian folks), try "Hope" .

Unknown said...

I've pretty much given up on 2012. I am doubtful the Republicans have anything to offer. And as much opposition exists to President Obama, I'm not sure the Repubs can muster anything to compete.

On the flip side, I'm not convinced President Obama will run again. Not sure he likes the job. But I think his Ego does, and that will probably be enough for him to run again.

I'm really looking toward 2016.

Give me Rand Paul and Sarah Palin.

"Paul/Palin 2016"


Anonymous said...

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted 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 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). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

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 (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


Ian Argent said...

National Popular Vote is a constitutional Amendment disguised as an unconstitutional interstate compact. If you want to get rid of the Electoral College, amend the constitution the right way.

2012 looks pretty dismal. I'm hoping that the One decides he can't take the slings and arrows of outraged pundits, takes his Awesome and goes home.

Christie isn't and can't be a candidate in 2012; even if he goes against his stated promise to stay in NJ, the NJ election cycle means he has to start campaigning while the pain in NJ is going on, and before the gain hits. Not a chance. As for his 2A stands, the executive branch is not where the activity is happening right now.

At this point, my opinion for hte 2012 elections cycle is that anything might happen. I could die, the sultan could die, the horse might learn to sing

Anonymous said...

State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "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."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.

In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.

The winner-take-all rule is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district -- a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

Ian Argent said...

There's an important difference in each state giving their electors direction to vote for the winner of their own state's winner-take-all elections and them directing the electors to vote for the winner of the National Popular Vote. The states are important, and ought to be made more important, not less.

And, for that matter, I still don't see how the NPV fixes the 2-party system? There's still only one executive of the United States. We dont' have a cabinet system where the minor parties can demand proportional representation in the Executive Branch.

Anonymous said...

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, along district lines (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support, while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The only thing the current system does is to punish candidates whose support is broadly based.

Ian Argent said...

AAnd all the third-party candidates still lost... NPV wouldn't have changed that. Which was why I pointed out that we aren't in a Westminister-type parliamentary system. Winner-take-all is winner-take all.

NPV also presents a situation where the electoral votes of a state could be awarded to a candidate that *lost* the popular vote in that state.

What I would like to see is a system similar to Maine (and at least one other) where the 2 electors from the senate seats were elected "at-large" and the electors from each house seat were elected by their districts. This would break the power of large metro areas in a state to determine the awarding of ALL the states electors.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

I hate the National Popular Vote movement. We need MORE federalism in this country, not less. I don't want 51% of the country deciding it's ok to piss the Cheerios of the other 49%.

Repeal the 17th amendment while you are at it.

Both are populist-progressive abominations unto Nuggan.

Ian Argent said...

More federalism = more gridlock = less government can do.

Likewise, if the Senate ever abolishes the filibuster, we will be worse for it

WV: andat - andat's the way it should be

Anonymous said...

Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person's vote equally important to presidential campaigns.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.

The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws(whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 "battleground" districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.

Anonymous said...

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 in name recognition 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 rules, 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.

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.

Anonymous said...

For example, 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.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

No, every vote everywhere will NOT be equally important. Low population regions can be safely ignored. You only have concentrate on high population areas. 'Flyover country' will actually be not worth the time and money to campaign in or even consider their issues.

Ian Argent said...

Also to note: the constitution very carefully differentially empowers the residents of small states versus large states. The Senate is no accident, and neither is the electoral college. The Framers were decidedly antimajoritarian.