DISQUS

Eric Silva · 9 months ago

Rich Keenan's letter is everything I wanted to say and didn't put as elequently. His understanding of the way that the founding fathers intended our government to be is much better than what the schools are teaching our children today or how many adults understand it. I am amazed at how many times our legislators feel they need to "fix" things that are not broken. They want to fix something that has happened only four times in our history? Out of how many presidential elections? Start working on something that will truly make things better!

SnoMan · 9 months ago

A few things that always seem to be ignored by those proposing idiotic things like this:
1. There is NO national "popular" vote or any national vote for POTUS in the USA and there never has been one. Referring to one only makes you look stupid and uneducated.
2. There is NOT one presidential election in the USA every 4 years - there are 50 separate presdiential elections in the USA every 4 years. Each state elects who their citizens want for POTUS and then the state (as a sovereign entity within our republic) casts its electotal votes based on how many congressional districts it has. This is how it was designed to work by men much smarter than those running this country today.
3. If you want to alter this system then please use the method demanded by the US Constitution - amend it. But quit with these end run games that refer to "national popular votes" and other such nonsense. Please recognoze we are not a homogeneous democracy of a country. Please recognize that we are a republic of 50 SEPARATE states and each is a sovereign entity.

Ginico · 9 months ago

As a 40 year subscriber of the Denver Post, I feel that since the demise of the Rocky Mountain news, that the editorial staff has taken a hard right in their comments. The comments on Geithner are both unwarranted and ludricrous. From the hearing with Liddy, it became apparent that communications were being channeled through Bernanke, and to say that Geithner should have known about the bonus fiasco, when he also was expected to be covering a myriad of bases according to you, is just plain laughable. The man is human and now supernatural. Critic of his plan for not having all of the i dotted and t's crossed after being in the office a few weeks is totally unfair. He is trying to work through the messes left by the previous administration and should be encouraged and not discouraged. I would appreciate a more positive attitude from this editorial staff, not only to support the Obama administration, but to help all of to gain a more positive attitude toward the future. Your editorial smack of pure right wing ideaology.
Ginico

susan · 9 months ago

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule 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.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

susan · 9 months ago

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 would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

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 Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators -- 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have 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. This national result is similar to 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): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, 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 -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 25 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes -- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

susan · 9 months ago

What the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution is "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, that the voters may vote and the 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.

There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The 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 in organizing the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (in particular, the fact that only three states used the winner-take-all rule) make it clear that the Founding Fathers never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.


In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote, and only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule. Since then, as a result of changes in state laws, 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 winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified 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.

susan · 9 months ago

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

susan · 9 months ago

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."

A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

If a "republican" form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a "democratic" method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.

susan · 9 months ago

National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences. It is a simple matter that your vote should count as much as everyone else's.

Dan · 9 months ago

If we want to see what such a change in electoral votes would mean, look no farther than the last Democratic Part Primary. Each state, even ones where one candidate trailed significantly, became important. While modest attention in either scenario would accrue to sparsely populated regions, all voters would be of great interest to the candidates.

Robert Forman · 9 months ago

California: 30 million people, 15 million voters?
Colorado: 5 million people, 2.5 million voters?

That's a very simplistic way to understand the problem. Do we really want California, New York, Illinois, and a handful of other states telling us - Colorado (and Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Montana, Kansas, Utah, etc.) - who to vote for????

There is a reason we have the Electoral College. It's the SAME REASON we have a US Senate -- where Colorado's two senators are equal in voting power to California's two senators. It evens the playing field so that the BIG STATES don't and can't rule Congress by themselves.

10 states already have a huge advantage in the Electoral Colllege; let's be wary of making our presidential votes count even less than they do now.