Vote Anti Incumbent

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

The bill has been enacted by states possessing 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to activate the law (Hawaii, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland).

The bill has passed 29 legislative chambers in 19 states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington).

The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by 1,777 state legislators.

The shortcomings of the current system stem from 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 each state).

Because of the winner-take-all rule, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 56 presidential elections (and 1 in 7 of the non-landslide elections). A shift of fewer than 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.

Another shortcoming of the winner-take-all rule is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, or organize in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign visits and ad money in just six closely divided “battleground” states. A total of 98% went to just 15 states. In other words, voters in two thirds of the states were essentially spectators to the election.

The U.S. Constitution gives the states exclusive and plenary control over the manner of awarding their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founder’s choice (having been used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789). The fact that Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes by district is a reminder that a amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

The bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Sacramento Bee, Common Cause, and Fair Vote.

State polls (mostly taken in 2009) show strong support for a national popular vote (AR–80%, CA–70%, CO–68%, CT–73%, DE–75%, ID–77%, IA–75%, KY–80%, ME–77%, MA–73%, MI–73%, MS–77%, MO–70%, NH–69%, NE–74%, NV–72%, NM–76%, NY–79%, NC–74%, OH–70%, OK–81%, PA–78%, RI–74%, SD–75%, UT–70%, VT–75%, VA–74%, WA–77%, and WI–71%). Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed.

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote and at www.NationalPopularVote.com.

As you may know by now, according to Mayan prophecy on 12-21-12 the world may end as we know it.  I had some time on my hands, so I was in Barnes and Noble and happened across December 21, 2012 For Dummies.  Yes, there is a book with that title, and many more books I discovered.  I chose the For Dummies book since that we the level of my knowledge on the subject.

Basically they say that leading up to 12-21-12 the Government and Religions will let us down and lead us astray.  They could have added Wall Street and been complete.  They say resources will be scarce.  Well I think we have seen that trend, at least since the March 2009 lows. With Asia’s growth, I think that is safe prediction.  End times are loosley interpreted, with at least one way of looking at it, there will be an awakening of some sorts. There is probably many different versions of what that might be from biblical to new age.  But out with the old and in with the new way of thinking might not be so bad.

I just hope we don’t make this a Y2K repeat. Remember back at this same time in 1999 when the media got the whole country historical and convinced nothing was going to work at midnight on 12-31-1999 because all the computers were going to fail which would shut down our whole system, including banking, airports, you name it.  There were “specials” on TV and radio, books, newsletters cropped up to tell people how to survive and people got really scared.  But mostly I remember how people reacted and got really scared. They withdrew cash from banks, stocked up on food, bought new computer systems and hunkered down which really is not that bad except for the fear part.  Always a good idea to be prepared in case of any emergency.  Then midnight on 12-31-1999 came and went without any problems to note.  But the point is that people got really really scared and I would hate to see that happen again over something like this.

Oh by the way, Nov 2012 is a presidential election year also.  The media is going to love this.  In the spot light will be the preachers, the politicians and the doomsayers. If enough is not going on, London will host the 2012 olympics - see their proposed logo at the top of this post.  Can you believe how bad this 2012 olympics logo is…  but looks appropriate for the end of the world.
Remind me to cancel my cable TV before 2012! But I will keep my Internet because I can look at what I want to, not what is forced upon me.

I just viewed President Obama being asked if he thought the strong opposition to his administration was racially motivated as soon have suggested.  He said there may be some of that but suggested a number of alternatives to explain the opposition, such as people always oppose change and there are some people who are just anti-government.

What does anti-government include.  Is it people who think government has just got too big and too intrusive in to their lives.  Who hold the opinion that government has gotten out of control and spends like a drunken sailor (but a drunken sailor at least spends their own money).  That government is for big business at the expense of the regular person. That government can’t be trusted.  That government taxes us to death.  That government is a control freak and wants us to dictate the way we lead our lives. Well if the above is anti-government, yes the President is correct that some people are anti-government and it seems the number of people with there sentiments are growing.

Are anti-government sentiments are growing?  You would think so based on the Tea Parties and the anti-government protest by members of both political parties and independents. Anti-government protesters and name calling and true rage seem to be common in 2009 even in a non election year, which seems to be unusual and an indication anti-government sentiments are growing.
There is the observation that everyday people you know and meet in the public seem to be really really mad at the way things are going in the country and they seem to all blame the government.  You can hardly have lunch with friends or associates without ending up with a conversation about the government and head shaking and a downward look at the floor.

Who are these people.  It seems everyone is anti-government. TV networks, majoe political parties and other groups lay claim to these anti-government protests, but it seems the average participants despise both major political parties and are mostly upset and angry with the federal government and their handling of things.
So President Obama did make an observation that “some people are just anti-government”.  He may realize soon it is a large and growing crowd of people that feel the anti-government sentiments. Will the reaction be a change of course?

Will growing anti-government sentiments lay the foundation for a third party movement leading up to the elections of 2012?