Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on October 5, 2010

Click here to view bill details.

Are you NUTS??? The electoral college protects the vote of outlying residents and smaller states. Instituting any scheme to bypass the electoral college means Michigan citizens might as well not vote as the big vote states, like New York, Texas, California and Florida WILL determine the outcome of the vote. This bozo needs to leave public service as he obviously doesnt care about the requirements of the Constitution!

This is a great idea. I'm surprised it came from a republican, since if it would have been in place in 2000, we wouldn't have had to endure 8 years of Bush.

As for the argument that bigger states would have more influence in the Presidential elections than less populated states, they would, and they should. They have more people. American voters should decide who our President is, no matter where they live. The President is a representative of the people, not the states. We have Congressmen and Senators for that.

 

The electoral system is flawed at best. What the hell is wrong with one person, one vote? What does a big state have to do with anything?

I agree!!!! People- educate yourself to the reason why we have the Electoral College in our democracy. It may not always go the way you want or the way I want but it's FAIR!

Leave the electoral college alone.

The electoral college thwarts the one man, one vote principal. We should join the compact of states to pledge our electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. No change in the constitution would be required to do so.

A survey of 800 Michigan voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 73% among independents, 78% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.

By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 67% among 30-45 year olds, 74% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 86% among women and 59% among men.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#MI_2008DEC

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
rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but now used 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 2008, candidates
concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six
states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC,
OH, PA, VA, and WI).   19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less
than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them.  Over half (57%) of the
events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia).  In
2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits
in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16
states, and 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. 

 
Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the
"spectator" states was 61%.
 
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 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States
and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11
states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about this
theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current
system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote
in these same 11 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).

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.

 This bill is a joke and all the liberal dimwits will jumpl on the bandwagon to support it!  Watch! 

You are attempting to misled people here, Kohler! The fact is, these National Popular Vote schemes dont work they way you are describing.  The way they work is two-fold: the electoral votes within a state or region ALL go with the popular vote in the largest states. So, if New York goes 51% for one candidate, that candidate gets ALL of that state's lelctoral votes. These schemes also state that the ALL electoral votes from any state in the agreement automatically convert to the 'popular' vote-which is obviously that large state's vote-and the votes assigned to the electors. Now, since we just 'GAVE' New York all of the New York votes, and same for the rest of the seaboard states, now the smaller midwestern sates dont have a chance-because their votes will all be assigned to the winner of seaboard states. Voila! Now, New York, California, Florida and Texas have imposed their vote preference on everybody! The rest of us might as well not vote!

 

truth and honesty - this is not a democracy , to a republic for which it stands. the gypsy lives in a democracy.

 .One Nation under socialism?  I think not!  It is as simple as that!

http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=70298