Comments on: An Odd Strategy http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/12/an-odd-strategy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=an-odd-strategy n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: PubliusCato1787 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/12/an-odd-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-12270 PubliusCato1787 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:26:50 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/12/an-odd-strategy/#comment-12270 mvymvy: My main concern about a national popular vote based on having a majority of states give their electors to the popular vote winner will annihilate any Presidential campaign by a third party. Third parties will no longer be a mere nuisance to the oligarchy politics of Demo-publicans and Republi-crats, But they may very well put our presidential election into turmoil, consider that in 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton won the presidency without a majority of the popular vote. Let alone that in 2000 neitther Bush or Gore received 50% of the popular vote. If the next Ross Perot causes such a political crisis, how does this state law determine the winner. Will those states have a run-off election, will they just pledge their votes to the candidate with a plurality of votes, will this law be completely undermined by a Ralph Nader? No sir, the fancy scheme to enact popular vote elections is a disaster waiting to happen. Rather the states should enact proportional distribution of Electoral votes. granted the GOP's efforts to get this on the ballot in California were lambasted in TAC's 11-19-07 issue "California Schemin'" by Steven Greenhut, but when one looks beyond the political maneuvering of a loser party in an unfriendly state, proportional voting for Electors lives up to our founder's ideals. Granted, proportional voting will definately give a bigger chunk of the electors to the loyal opposition, the massive spillover benefit is that voters will have an incentive to vote their conscience when states are not winner take all. If that happens, there will become a group of relatively independent electors who can actually play king -er- president maker in the Electoral College, just like our founders intended. The Founders created the Electoral College as a check against the elections of demagogues. Unfortunately, the establishment of winner take all elections and political partisanship has made the Electoral College not more than a formality. But proportional voting returns those teeth to the College. Imagine if in '92 '96 or 2000 the third party insurgent has a proportional share of the Electors, we could have had a President Perot, we could have had a President Gore. Although these possibilities send shivers down my spine, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I would rather suffer the consequences of a working Electoral College than an ineffective one. mvymvy: My main concern about a national popular vote based on having a majority of states give their electors to the popular vote winner will annihilate any Presidential campaign by a third party. Third parties will no longer be a mere nuisance to the oligarchy politics of Demo-publicans and Republi-crats, But they may very well put our presidential election into turmoil, consider that in 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton won the presidency without a majority of the popular vote. Let alone that in 2000 neitther Bush or Gore received 50% of the popular vote. If the next Ross Perot causes such a political crisis, how does this state law determine the winner. Will those states have a run-off election, will they just pledge their votes to the candidate with a plurality of votes, will this law be completely undermined by a Ralph Nader?

No sir, the fancy scheme to enact popular vote elections is a disaster waiting to happen. Rather the states should enact proportional distribution of Electoral votes. granted the GOP’s efforts to get this on the ballot in California were lambasted in TAC’s 11-19-07 issue “California Schemin’” by Steven Greenhut, but when one looks beyond the political maneuvering of a loser party in an unfriendly state, proportional voting for Electors lives up to our founder’s ideals. Granted, proportional voting will definately give a bigger chunk of the electors to the loyal opposition, the massive spillover benefit is that voters will have an incentive to vote their conscience when states are not winner take all. If that happens, there will become a group of relatively independent electors who can actually play king -er- president maker in the Electoral College, just like our founders intended.

The Founders created the Electoral College as a check against the elections of demagogues. Unfortunately, the establishment of winner take all elections and political partisanship has made the Electoral College not more than a formality. But proportional voting returns those teeth to the College. Imagine if in ’92 ’96 or 2000 the third party insurgent has a proportional share of the Electors, we could have had a President Perot, we could have had a President Gore. Although these possibilities send shivers down my spine, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I would rather suffer the consequences of a working Electoral College than an ineffective one.

]]> By: Daniel Larison http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/12/an-odd-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-12232 Daniel Larison Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:48:56 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/12/an-odd-strategy/#comment-12232 Fair enough. I saw the new Rasmussen numbers today, and it's true that Louisiana is out of reach. He has a much better shot at Indiana than any Democrat in recent memory. I'm doubtful it will happen, but coming from an adjacent state and exploiting an anti-GOP mood there might work. Fair enough. I saw the new Rasmussen numbers today, and it’s true that Louisiana is out of reach. He has a much better shot at Indiana than any Democrat in recent memory. I’m doubtful it will happen, but coming from an adjacent state and exploiting an anti-GOP mood there might work.

]]> By: General Mobius http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/12/an-odd-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-12231 General Mobius Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:42:05 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/12/an-odd-strategy/#comment-12231 My only caveat here is that I think campaigning in Louisiana is equally as insane as campaigning in Georgia. LA is markedly different state than it was in 1996 or before, and it's well-known that it's one of the only states actually trending Republican right now. Also, Obama is down by 20 there according to Rasmussen. Whether it's voted for Democrats or not, I would take a +5 in Montana over a -20 in Louisiana any day. That said, he should shoot for West Virginia and Arkansas at the least. I honestly believe he can win them. But I also believe he can North Dakota, Alaska and Montana - and he *will* win Indiana. My only caveat here is that I think campaigning in Louisiana is equally as insane as campaigning in Georgia. LA is markedly different state than it was in 1996 or before, and it’s well-known that it’s one of the only states actually trending Republican right now. Also, Obama is down by 20 there according to Rasmussen. Whether it’s voted for Democrats or not, I would take a +5 in Montana over a -20 in Louisiana any day.

That said, he should shoot for West Virginia and Arkansas at the least. I honestly believe he can win them. But I also believe he can North Dakota, Alaska and Montana – and he *will* win Indiana.

]]> By: mvymvy http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/12/an-odd-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-12228 mvymvy Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:56:04 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/12/an-odd-strategy/#comment-12228 The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states. 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 bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- 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). Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 20 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

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 bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — 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).

Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 20 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

]]> By: Will Chamberlain http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/12/an-odd-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-12181 Will Chamberlain Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:38:32 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/12/an-odd-strategy/#comment-12181 Daniel, If you take a look at the projections on fivethirtyeight.com Obama's choices look a lot more reasonable. In polling done in Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee, Obama is getting crushed, but polling in places like Montana, SD, and Indiana, he's doing far better, and Alaska and Georgia are where the campaign expects Bob Barr to take a chunk out of McCain's support. (Plouffe mentioned something about this in one of his press dealie-os.) Daniel,

If you take a look at the projections on fivethirtyeight.com Obama’s choices look a lot more reasonable. In polling done in Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee, Obama is getting crushed, but polling in places like Montana, SD, and Indiana, he’s doing far better, and Alaska and Georgia are where the campaign expects Bob Barr to take a chunk out of McCain’s support. (Plouffe mentioned something about this in one of his press dealie-os.)

]]>