Political Vanguard

Thanks Tom,

I appreciate your strong stand for our Constitution and the principles upon which it is based. The moves toward democracy and away from the representative republic that was established by our founders must be stopped. Thanks again for all you are doing to inform the electorate in these most important matters.

Indeed, Republicans are doing so darn good in California that we should all agree to keep everything as it is.  Signed, Every Democrat Voter In California

Here is a published article written last month by me. You can see we agree with Tom

Saving Our Republic

     By Lee Ellis

Is the new National Popular Vote Legislation misleading voters and even some Republican leaders? Is it part of a Leftist master plan to change our Republic by slowly eliminating the Electoral College thus converting our Republic to a European type of a secularist, socialized democracy?

Starting decades ago, this Far Left master plan began with infiltrations of our universities along with the indoctrinations of our youth by tenured Marxist professors, followed by more infiltrations of the main-stream media and some political organizations. America, as a result, started slowly drifting left. The propaganda of “political correctness” accelerated this drift! All this had influenced many of the under 40 year old voters who leaned towards “Hope” and “Change” sans any clear definitions.

The final step by our Marxist enemies must be the complete elimination of our Electoral College thus allowing a few metropolitan areas such as LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit and New York to select all future Presidents. Millions of small town Americans will lose their presidential votes.

The prelude to this could be a bill making its way through the California Assembly, AB459! The San Francisco Chronicle, a left-leaning publication, describes AB459 thusly: "AB459...would change California's system ... states that pass similar legislation would agree through a compact to award all their votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote nationwide. The laws wouldn't go into effect until states representing 270 electoral votes, a majority and the number needed to elect a president, agree to the compact.”

Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey and Maryland -- with a total of 73 electoral votes -- have passed the legislation proposed by National Popular Vote, a nonprofit based in Silicon Valley and founded by Stanford Professor John  Koza, who came up with the idea. 

While many conservatives have tried to reverse this leftist drift via  Tea Parties and a slow awakening of a few  Independents, but is all this too late?  I fear it may be. 

Too many elected politicians think that a compromise with the Left will further their political careers.  America would be better served if strong term limits kept citizen leaders devoting just a few years of service and then returned them to their regular occupations to live under the rules they created.

Only then can we keep our American Republic flourishing as a bastion of freedom!

Many people wrongly believe the presidential election system we have today is in the Constitution. But state-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. 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 constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century. 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 method) 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, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (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 entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It 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 method. 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 method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. 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. 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 has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

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. 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, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost  75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.  This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign,, when 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 (OH, FL, PA, and VA).  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.  

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

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

The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach, launched in 2006.  It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections.  It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.  It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.  

The bill would take effect when enacted by states that have a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). Then, 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 would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws,  not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

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.  It does not abolish the Electoral College. 

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).  Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed 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 smaller 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%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes -- 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, successful candidates will continue to find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Now political clout comes from being a battleground state. Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont. None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state. The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states. The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States. Under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes. With National Popular Vote, big states that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates' attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split -- five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) 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. 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, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. 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 far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. A "big city" only campaign would not win. The main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas. 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. If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still 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 voters in Ohio.

Tom, we spoke before. I told you this would happen. I also told you that you and all the other useless Republcans must add more congressional seats, certainly more seats in the corrupt California assembly. The US House of Reps has been fixed at 435 members since 1929, there are supposed to be 10,333 seats in the House of Reps, the California Assembly has 80 seats where the smaller state New Hampshire has 400 seats even Texas has some 200 seats in their respected lower houses. 

Amazing how so many Americans think they are improving elections and all they are doing is paving the way for slavery. Good luck. 

Now is the wrong time for any drastic changes in the makeup of our republic. We have too much to lose. And there are too many political predators lurking about with hidden agendas hoping we can be tricked into making changes that will transfer our individual political power to them and their political machine. Once we lose our political power to any group we will not in all probability ever regain it. That is just too serious a thing to risk losing. And we could be blindsided by a hidden agenda lurking somewhere within this political movement.

PLEASE-------------

DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I see from the above that the trolls from the National Popular vote have infested this site with their misleading crap.

The National Popular Vote claims the Electoral College system is defective and contrary to democracy because a candidate could win the mythical national popular vote but lose the electoral vote.  That is like saying the baseball team that scored more runs in the World Series should be declared the winner even though the other team won the 4 games necessary to win the 7 games series.  This assertion is simply a straw man argument because the Constitution did not establish a national system of government or a national democracy. 

 This plan is just another attack on the federal system of government established by the Constitution in the name of a system of government that was rejected by the individuals who wrote and adopted the Constitution. 

An election like 1876, 1888, or even 2000 is not a "miss" as implied by the NPV troll above. The first two of these elections were the great triumphs of the Electoral College system and 2000 was a essentially a tie--an election close enough that the weather could make the difference.

NPV's position that the 1876 election should have produced a Tilden victory is tantamount to an endorsement of racist vote suppression. NPV's position that the 1888 election should have produced a Cleveland victory blindly ignores the effect this would have had on national politics, allowing and exacerbating regional divides and the dangerous radicalism that lingered after the Civil War.

Of course, NPV's lobbyists don't actually want to disenfranchise voters or destabilize the country ... they're just willfully blind, like an ostrich that's burried its head in a pile of money.

Say what you will about the wisdom of the national popular vote scheme, it's plainly permitted by the constitution.  States are empowered by the Constitution to appoint presidential electors "in such manner as the legislature[s] thereof may direct." 

If California wanted to appoint its presidential electors on the basis of a wet T-shirt contest, it would be fully within its constitutional powers to do so.  

That is not to say that the National Popular Vote scheme is wise, of course, but the Constitution places no limit on the methods a State legislature might direct for the appointment of presidential electors.

So long as the method used is provided for by the legislature, anything goes.

Tom -

I agree with YOU!  Anything you and I don't like is certainly unconstitutional, and neither of us should have to produce one single, solitary legal argument to support that opinion. 

And you haven't. 

So kudos to you.  And damn anyone who disagrees with us.  If they do, THEY THEMSELVES are probably unconstitutional!