The 99% Declaration » 17. Abolishing the Electoral College and Uniform Election Rules

- Video Chat
- Like This Page
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Back to Top
- Settings

##

# 17. Abolishing the Electoral College and Uniform Election Rules

Grievances Add comments
Dec 082011

Ending the Electoral College and Enactment of Uniform Federal Election Rules in All of the States. The 99% demand the abolishment of the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote in presidential elections to avoid situations where the Electoral College elects a candidate who does not receive a majority of the popular vote. As mentioned in suggested grievance one, Congress shall immediately enact uniform electoral reforms requiring total equal public campaign financing to all candidates who obtain sufficient petition signatures and/or votes to get on the ballot and participate in the primaries and/or general election. All funds used for the election of federal politicians will be drawn from a public trust specifically created for this purpose and managed by the Federal Elections Commission and the United States Treasury. Thus, a person who receives sufficient signatures to get on the ballot for the House of Representatives would receive “x” public dollars, Senate, “y” public dollars and President, “z”public dollars. All funds for candidates to be drawn from this political campaign trust will be funded by the taxpayers. However, individuals, unions, corporations or other groups or entities that wish to contribute to the political campaign trust may do so without knowledge of where the funds will ultimately be applied. All private funds contributed to the political campaign trust will be kept confidential and commingled with taxpayer monies used to pay for the entire federal electoral process. Politicians will no longer be permitted to ask for campaign contributions of any kind. Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission will require all licensees to provide free equal commercial air time to all candidates on the ballot. Failure to comply with these new rules and regulations to provide free and equal air time to candidates on the ballot will result in cancellation of the broadcast license. To reduce voter fraud and voter discrimination, Congress will utilize the Commerce Clause and other constitutional authority, to implement nationwide uniform election rules applied to all voting districts. The FEC will be directly responsible to ensure equal access to the polls, removing unfair hurdles to independent candidates and third parties so they may appear on the ballot. ”Gerrymandering”, which freezes out third parties and ensures electoral outcomes will be ended through the use of non-partisan public commissions to fairly and impartiality redraw voting district lines. Voting will take place on weekends and holidays to increase voter access to the polls and minimize voter disenfranchisement. The FEC shall issue free voter registration cards to all citizens who are eligible to vote so that they cannot be turned away at a polling station because they do not have a driver’s license or other form of identification. The civil rights division of the Justice Department shall aggressively review all complaints of the exclusion of voters with non-violent criminal records, tactics used by certain states and municipalities to limit and obstruct voter access to the polls by requiring “tests” to vote. The federal government shall invest in a uniform, secure, and verifiable voting system to be used in every voting district in the United States. Additional provisions shall be made for those citizens who cannot attend polling sites due to disability, illness or absence from the country.

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
please wait...
Rating: 8.6/10 (11 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Rating: +14 (from 16 votes)
17. Abolishing the Electoral College and Uniform Election Rules, 8.6 out of 10 based on 11 ratings

- Post to Facebook
- Post to Twitter
- Add to LinkedIn
- Post to Delicious
- Post to StumbleUpon
- Send via Gmail
- Send via E-mail program
- Print with PrintFriendly
- Add to Tumblr

Get Shareaholic for Firefox
0

### 25 Responses to “17. Abolishing the Electoral College and Uniform Election Rules”

1. uprising1 says:
   2012/01/21 at 10:30 am

   You forgot e voting machine fraud. We now know that all Ohio presidential votes in 2004 were filtered through the Republican Party computer before tabulation. further, the one whistle blower to this vote theft died mysteriously on his way to testify in court. All E voting machines exist for one purpose and one purpose only – to steal elections. the bradblog.com and black box voting have cataloged all evidence of vote theft in the last four elections. Moreover exit polls prove that hundreds of elections at all levels of government have been stolen. see above sources for proof of that statement. kerry beat bush by 6 percentage points in 2004 exit polls prove that. bush stole both elections in fact. Counting the votes is infinitely more important than casting votes. All qualified adults should be issued a mail in ballot, sent by the social security office but remaining anonymous. then a recorded record will exist and no vote can be duplicated. The alternative is the Canadian system which uses hand counted paper ballots done in each district with representatives of all candidates present at the counting to validate absence of fraud. This is a critical issue to democracy. Please add this to your agenda.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - ezeflyer says:
     2012/01/21 at 8:26 pm

     We must not confuse online voting with corrupt voting machines. If we can do our banking, pay our taxes, buy stuff online and if the government, military, law enforcement and industry can conduct business safely online, we should be able to govern ourselves, make the laws and vote for them safely online.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
     Log in to Reply
2. sammiejomitc says:
   2012/01/21 at 4:02 am

   We should eliminate political parties. There were none in the beginning of our nation. The founding fathers thought they would cause stagnation.

   It’s wrong to think that just because a politician belongs to a particular party that they will vote a certain way. Having all candidates be independents would encourage more candidates and more ideas, eliminate gerrymandering, and obstructionism.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
   Log in to Reply
3. n2g66ngm says:
   2012/01/15 at 11:22 pm

   If going to the trouble to elect and convene delegates, why not propose constitutional amendments? http://1787regime.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/constitutional-amendments/

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - robdinsmore says:
     2012/01/22 at 12:31 pm

     Proposing enactment of amendments or pre-existing bills is a good idea, however we need to have them actually written.

     So for the financial aspect of elections we can demand the passage of the Kucinich sponsored bill that calls for an amendment to remove all private financing.

     As far as the electoral college goes, there have been or are several bills in existence:
     http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=298907&amp;

     So what, if any, are the reasons for not abolishing the electoral college system? Does it save campaign dollars to have such a system? If we make all campaigns publicly funded, we owe it to the public to do so efficiently. The electoral system might allow candidates to skip certain states and concentrate on others, but do they? Under a popular vote system, one might think instead candidates might just visit large metropolitan areas with a large percentage of undecided voters. But in doing so they would still travel to more rural areas near those cities for photo ops just like they do now. It also appears that the candidates still spend some time in MT and WY for the same reason. It shows the rest of the nation that they ‘care’ about sparsely populated states. And the presidential candidates also have to show up in ‘enemy’ territory for the same reason.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2008

     Here it says McCain visited 8 times to Obama’s 6 visits.

     So if candidates are still visiting lost causes, it cant be that they are actively trying to ignore any region, nor that they are saving money by targeting certain areas. I think the press would pick it up if candidates ignored certain regions and this would damage their campaigns.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
     Log in to Reply
4. dabeer says:
   2012/01/09 at 1:35 pm

   Can we take this a step further? Eliminate the two-party system and enact instant runoff voting.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 4.7/5 (3 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - artzyvanessa says:
     2012/01/22 at 9:23 pm

     Instant runoff voting is the ONLY way to go to insure that no candidate wins with less than a majority and to avoid the “wasted vote” mentality. I believe that implementing this method of voting should be at the top of the list.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
     Log in to Reply
5. pclark44224 says:
   2012/01/04 at 8:51 pm

   I disagree with the elimination of the electoral college. The problem doesn’t primarily lie with this system as much at it lies with the fact that it isn’t being used properly.

   Overall I think that the electoral college was an ingenious system for circumventing the technological obstacles that were present in the days of the founding. But even though we no longer face the same difficulties I think the system still has merit.

   I think the primary problem lies in the Winner Take All system for awarding delegates. This system consolidates power among the most populous states (California, New York, I’m looking at you) and marginalizes much of the rest of the countries (Hello? Montana? You there?) A popular vote system does little to eliminate this problem either with the majority of attention being given only to major population centers while neglecting the sparser more rural regions.

   This is where I think the electoral college has an advantage over a popular vote if its used properly. Each delegate represents a certain number of people and that number is the same for all of them. That means that winning each individual region is just as important as winning every other region, so no are is marginalized.

   Further, lets face the fact here, people are ignorant. I don’t say this to be mean or offensive, but we are. We all have our own lives with our own important things going on within them and so we don’t necessarily have the time or will to sit down and find the best candidate for the job. That’s the same reason why we elect representatives to congress.

   Ideally, the electoral college should work just the way it sounds. A group of elected individuals whose sole job is to review, debate, and eventually select to most appropriate candidate for the office of president. Each delegate sent forth from their congressional district, with two provided for the state as a whole, before presidential petitions are even tallied, elected solely on the views and qualifications. Of course this is a lofty ideal.

   I would settle for an Amendment awarding delegates to a candidate based on with winner for each district with a bonus of two for the popular vote in the state overall.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - zarepheth says:
     2012/01/04 at 9:52 pm

     I agree that the Electoral College system as implemented is not working as it should. It had merit at the time our constitution was written and as you point out it may still have some merit.

     However, if the “winner takes all” approach used by 48 of the 50 states is not removed, popular voting is a better choice than keeping the Electoral College. Without a consitutional amendment, this item on the list of grievances will have to be brought before the governer and legislature of each of those 48 states to get them to change their system so third parties have a fair shot at the election and so people who did not vote for the winning party in their state have their votes count towards president.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
     Log in to Reply
6. Mark Greene says:
   2011/12/26 at 4:33 pm

   It just occurred to me that the executive could in theory refuse to respond to our petition on the grounds that the President and Vice-President are not elected by the people, but by the electors – ergo the petitioners, we the people, would have no standing. Haha! But seriously, if my understanding of our legal rationale behind all this is that we intend to sue, as in bring suit, legally, against the recipients if we feel the redress in non-existent or inadequate, then I don’t think this is totally an irrelevant point. Is it? (Michael, feel free to weigh in here – am curious about this suing business…)

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
   Log in to Reply
7. karlie says:
   2011/12/23 at 4:56 am

   Ideas from OWS/NYCGA on Election Reform: http://www.nycga.net/groups/political-and-electoral-reform/docs/people-before-parties-recommendations-for-electoral-reform-%E2%80%93-final-consensus-document

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - n2g66ngm says:
     2012/01/15 at 11:30 pm

     I find the suggestions there for various reforms very convincing. I am concerned, however, that the State legislatures may consist overwhelmingly of the “narrow political factions” mentioned in the cited web page, and so will see their interest as in preventing reform and experimentation rather than promoting it.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
     Log in to Reply
8. Dawn Hale says:
   2011/12/21 at 8:58 pm

   Since michael changed article V and eliminated the third party idea, would everyone agree to have the grievance that talks about election reform and public financing of elections say that we propose that all national elections be nonpartisan? If we are going to have public financing for elections, and if we are promoting “independent” individuals run against the corporate lackeys currently in office doesn’t it make sense to make elections nonpartisan? What is the party needed for? Traditionally it was for money but we re advocating public financing so the DNC or RNC won’t be contributing dollars anymore. What do you all think?

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
   Log in to Reply
   - Mark Greene says:
     2011/12/25 at 12:33 pm

     While I am opposed to the level of control the parties have over both the electoral and governmental process currently, I think it would be over-stepping to basically ban the parties from the process. Parties do or should stand for something, and what they stand for is a valid point of information to the voters. What we do need is language that clearly denies an advantage to partisan vs. non-partisan candidates, or major parties over 3rd parties. I am not certain on how this language would be constructed, but know its doable.

     I also believe we should steer clear of excess specificity in our proposed solutions. All the lawmakers or opponents have to do is find one unworkable aspect, the thread to pull, so to speak, and the whole thing could come tumbling down. Every grievance should have a proposed solution, however, defined primarily by the benchmarks to be met rather than specific strategies.

     Finally, I believe this particular grievance has too many points and we should consider breaking it up, perhaps into voter/candidate/party access issues and more mechanical issues such as funding and gerrymandering. I agree with all the points, just feel we may be trying to fit too many under this particular umbrella. To be fully insulated from court interference, the funding and gerrymandering should really be contained in one or two Constitutional Amendments, IMHO.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
     Log in to Reply
     - maplehead74 says:
       2012/01/07 at 7:44 am

       In general I agree with your view. I like the idea that a candidate has to align his or her self with A. B. C. party so that the voter have a general starting point in researching the candidates ideologies. I would like to see several parties get elected to office, like in Canada. It seems this would allow more work to get done as various parties would aline ideologies across party lines on some but not all topics. Example based on current events: Libertarians would end the war and down size the military Progressives would be able to work with them on this. But, when against them on issues like education and environment. If you had a pool of 7-9 parties that got elected constituents could pick candidates that really align with their views. And, yet there would be enough views represented that we wouldn’t be faced with stagnate government. Sure you may end up with groups Tea party , Libertarians, GOP or Progressives , Greens and Dems…. voting together , but not on every issue.

       I don’t think party affiliation would be necessary for constituents in this case, only those running for and or holding office.

       I think if we could create the environment for change it would be easy to move pieces through. So I agree most of the grievances should be broken down at least as sub-sections. The things I think that would make the most immediate impact would getting the money out of the process and open primaries in all states.

       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       please wait...
       Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
       Log in to Reply
9. Jean Netherton says:
   2011/12/18 at 3:19 pm

   drop 19 Election Reform

   there is already in the works a National Popular Vote group who are doing an excellent job. We could show our support through endorsement. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

   The need for public funding should be addressed in 1-3.

   No need for redundancy.

   VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - zarepheth says:
     2011/12/20 at 8:56 pm

     I prefer the direct popular vote proposed here over the state-by-state compact proposed by the “National Popular Vote” group. However, their approach can be enacted without a constitutional amendant, but this proposal will require an amendment since the electoral college is part of our constitution.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
     Log in to Reply
     - toto says:
       2011/12/22 at 12:42 pm

       To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

       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, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that will just be ‘spectators’ and ignored.

       When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

       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.

       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 for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group 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 Small 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%, TN – 83%, 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%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

       The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

       NationalPopularVote

       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       please wait...
       Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
       Log in to Reply
       - cavenewt says:
         2011/12/26 at 2:33 pm

         I live in Wyoming, where my vote has always been of zero value. I am in favor of whatever measure will actually have a chance of giving the office to the winner of the popular vote. If a constitutional amendment is unrealistic, then perhaps, as suggested, this movement should proceed on the state-based action plan.

         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         please wait...
         Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
         Log in to Reply
       - Mark Greene says:
         2011/12/26 at 4:43 pm

         I would very much like to see this change enacted – am wondering if any role would remain for the electoral college? In my mind, a reason for retaining it would be that it would/could provide a soft margin to avoid endless recounts over very tight contests. Texas, for instance, has 36 electors now, I believe. So each elector would represent in the vicinity of 350,000 voters, meaning vote totals per block would only need to be within 175,000 or better to be considered valid. Haven’t thought it all the way through, but know winner-take-all pretty much negates the one-man-one-vote principle…

         This is another I believe would best be handled as a Constitutional Amendment, although any remedy is better than none…

         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         please wait...
         Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
         Log in to Reply
         - toto says:
           2011/12/27 at 2:29 pm

           The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

           Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

           The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

           The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

           We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

           The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.

           Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

           The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

           No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

           The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.

           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           please wait...
           Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
         - toto says:
           2011/12/27 at 2:30 pm

           The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

           The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

           The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

           Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states 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 do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

           The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in 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. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           please wait...
           Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
10. Tony says:
    2011/12/11 at 6:21 pm

    May want to rephrase the part on the election season; it’s not clear if if applies to all elected Federal officials or just the President. I believe it should be ALL.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
11. Bill O'Donnell says:
    2011/12/11 at 11:55 am

    I would stay away from internet voting as there have been enough problems with electronic voting machines in past elections without the possibility of potential unwanted access from the internet. In addition, a new method of casting a ballot comes with new ways to falsify poll results.

    In addition, if the FCC were to grant free air time to all candidates, would this be in terms of ad space, or would scheduled programming of selected networks be superseded to air candidate’s debates, speeches, and addresses?

    I’d also recommend that it be written into law that all American citizens must have X amount of hours off from work while the polls are open on election day. I spoke with a man who had to approach his supervisor to allow employees enough time to be able to go to the nearest polling station and vote in the 2008 presidential elections.

    Further, in regards to public campaign financing, it might better serve the public if the distribution of campaign finance was non-partisan, recognizing all candidates as unaffiliated with any particular political party. Of course there could be the possibility of an established party providing multiple candidates to secure more money for their particular platform, so there might be a more effective strategy in creating equal public non-partisan campaign funding without privatizing political parties.

    EXAMPLE: 6 Republican candidates (affiliation not recognized by public campaign finance), 6 Democratic candidates (again not recognized), and 8 separate 3rd party candidates run for office. All affiliated candidates run on the same platform with minor fringe differences, while all third party candidates run on their own platforms. 30% of the funding goes to the Democratic platform, 30% to the Republican platform, and all other 8 platforms only receive 5% each. It would seem that though there’s a disparity between funding for each platform there would be no reason why a democratic vote would be worth any more since it could go any one of 6 ways. But if throughout the campaign 5 of the 6 candidates decided to either withdraw due to personal scandal, or adopt a new more radical stance, or find some way to shoot themselves in the foot (completely unexpectedly mind you) you’d eventually be left with 10 possible candidates, 2 of which have been running on platforms that have been funded with 30% of the public campaign money, and 8 that have been running on 5% of the public fund.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - dabeer says:
      2012/01/09 at 9:49 pm

      For public financing, I’d like to see all candidates that achieve a prerequisite amount of support (e.g. 3% of their constituency signing a petition) become eligible to appear on the ballot, and receive an equal fixed pool of money to use on their campaign, regardless of party alignment. The amount of support and campaign budget can be established at the level of the election, i.e. the state decides for candidates for U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, and the U.S. Congress decides for the presidency.

      Additionally, to allow third party candidacy without removing support from similarly-aligned candidates, as happens with the current system, we need to institute instant run-off voting. In instant run-off voting, voters rank all candidates in order of preference. #1 votes are tallied, and if no candidate reaches 50% of the popular vote, then the lowest candidate is dropped, and the #2 votes from ballots that had that candidate as #1 are tallied. Repeat until one candidate has more than 50% of the popular vote.

      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply

### Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Would you prefer Michael Pollok, founder of the 99D, stay or resign?
Stay
Resign
Vote View Results
Share This Polldaddy.com
Should an anonymous donor be allowed to demand the resignation of a 99D board member as a condition of providing the match donation?
Yes
No
Vote View Results
Share This Polldaddy.com

Check out what's being said on all the Grievances and help draft the Petition!

1. Elimination of the Corporate State
View & Comment

2. Abrogation of “Citizens United” Case
View & Comment

3. Elimination of All Private Benefits and Perks” to Public Servants
View & Comment

4. Term Limits
View & Comment

5. A Fair Tax Code
View & Comment

6. Healthcare for All
View & Comment

7. Protection of the Planet
View & Comment

8. Federal Debt Reduction
View & Comment

9. Jobs for All Americans
View & Comment

10. Student Loan Debt Relief & Refinancing
View & Comment

11. Ending of Perpetual War for Profit
View & Comment

12. Emergency Reform of Public Education
View & Comment

13. End Outsourcing and Currency Manipulation
View & Comment

14. Banking and Securities Reform
View & Comment

15. Foreclosure Moratorium
View & Comment

16. Ending the Federal Reserve Bank
View & Comment

17. Abolish the Electoral College and Enact Uniform Election Rules
View & Comment

18. Ending the War in Afghanistan and
Care of Veterans
View & Comment

19. No Censorship of the Internet
View & Comment

20. Reinstitution of Civil Rights
View & Comment

21. Ending the “War on Drugs” and
Curtailing the Prison Industrial Complex
View & Comment

Suggest a Grievance
Please check if your idea fits in one of the already suggested grievances above first. If not, please add your comments here.
Other Suggestions/Revisions
Please check if your suggestion/revision fits in any of the grievances above. If not, you may post comments here.

### Vote for Delegates

- Register to Vote for Delegates

### Become A Delegate

- Become a Delegate

### Get Involved

- Volunteer

The 99% Declaration Website by The 99% Working Group, LTD is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. |  | Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha