On the electoral issue, I can agree that every vote should be the same. That indeed some states like Utah or Hawaii are locked up. And that a democrat who votes in Utah is basically not counted, just like a Republican in Hawaii. We can agree that that is wrong,and sucks.

I will state again…I have not educated myself on this issue yet. And until I read the bills themselves, i’m not going to directly disagree with any particular view. I’v said this from the beginning.
However, I disagree that candidates would campaign in Montana just as much or more. In Montana, a vote may count JUST as much, but there are less votes to be had…and they are spread further apart.

Who would spend time in those states if national popular vote were adopted? It is much more likely that a candidate would. Because every vote would be treated equally! Picking up one vote in Utah would be just as good as picking up one vote in Ohio. Right now, a vote in Ohio is worth like 10,000 times as much as a vote in Utah or Vermont, etc.

As for the notion that this would gear campaigns to cities, i.e. black people (gasp!)... Right now, a candidate could create an urban campaign, campaign to big cities, get 51% of the electoral votes by securing 51% of the vote in urban states. He could make an urban campaign and win with like 25% of the popular vote. If anything, the current system gives urban cities unfair power if targetted correctly.

Social and political equality is a foundational concept. The vote of one person in Salt Lake City should be equal to the vote of someone in a small Ohio town. The vote of someone in Cleveland should be equal to the vote of someone in rural Vermont.

You cannot say what the founders intended or did not intend beyond what is literally in the Constitution. They intended for states to decide electors, that is for sure. This does not violate this. You cannot claim to defend “state’s rights” by infringing upon them. Who would do this? The federal government? The Supreme Court? There is no basis, and if they were to do so, it would be a truly totalitarian act.

If the D.C. folks feel un-represetented, let them move. I always love the flag wavers that preface “the Founders could not have known…..” comments. Same used for unconstitutional wars, etc.

Haha. You like to argue too much GE. I admitted that I was not properly educated on this subject,and hadn’t done any research yet.
Also, you know nothing of my religion—don’t make assumptions you can’t back up. I have only ever claimed to be a Christian. I have not ever declared myself a member of any denomination (Baptist, methodist, or Mormon) and have never given my theological views on the Bible (if its perfect, or flawed, or metaphorical or literal). And I don’t use the Bible to make any points in politics, nor do I discuss religion with people, as mine is a PERSONAL relationship with God.

In light of the facts you present, you may indeed be right. As I originally stated—I have not researched the subject. I simply stated I didn’t think this was what the Founders intended.
I said that because this agreement between states violates the small state,big state compromises. The focus of all presidential elections will simply be placed on large urban centers.
Furthermore, I don’t have to be clairvoyant to determine how the Founders intended the Electoral College to be used, as they were instrumental in its first use.
As for States’ Rights, it reduces them. California would have given George Bush all 55 electoral votes in 2004, even though he lost by 10% in that state. So California’s voice in the Electoral system would basically be nullified in the 2004 election.
Also, for rural states like Maine, Iowa, Montana…there electoral votes would not be courted at all. Who would waste time campaigning in Montana (for 900,000 votes) when they could campaign for California (for 34 million votes)? It completely nullifies the Compromises made on the electoral college on the basis of equal representation for states while simultaneously respecting population hedgemony.

The founders intended for slates of electors to be sent by state legislatures. How the legislatures determined which slate of electors to send was entirely up to the states.

I thought you were for “state’s rights”? Or better yet, a decentralization of power? If individual state legislatures decide that they want to use the national popular vote to determine which slate of electors they send, then this is in no way uncostitutional. If you say it “goes against what the founders intended,” then apparently you’re a clairvoyant. Othes could argue that state-wide popular vote to determine elector slates was “against what the founders intended” or that states like Nebraska and Maine that split their elcetoral votes are “against what the founders intended,” etc.

You don’t know the Constitution very well at all if you think you can “search” it to find something that makes national popular vote “unconsitutional.” This isn’t your cherished Bible, full of contradictions and inaccuracies that you can always twist to make whatever point you want.

FACTS

1. The Constitution calls for state legislatures to select electors for the electoral college

2. State law determines how those electors are chosen

3. The founders intended to leave the manner in which those electors were chosen up to the individual states

You have literally never been more wrong than when you assert that any of the above are untrue.

The most antidemocratic aspect of our Constitution is the fact that the composition of the Senate cannot be changed. We cannot pass an amendment, for example, that says “Senate seats will now be allotted based on a state’s population.” This is the ONE THING that cannot be changed, because it is explicitly excluded in the article on amendments.

Realistically, the thing to do is scale back the national government’s power so that the disproportionate representation in the Senate has less of an impact. There are other fruity reforms (i.e. electing the entire Senate via proportional representation on a national scale, but allotting seats to candidates from the requesite states; or repealing the direct election of senators) that have even less chance of being enacted than a scale-back of power.

Also: I really like this national popular vote initiative by which state legislatures agree to send the electors of the popular vote winner once at least half of the electoral-vote holding states ratify it.

It doesn’t matter what would happen if they voted between Independence and Statehood. What matters is that right now, they don’t pay taxes—but they are U.S. citizens. They are in a great position the way they see it.