CAN WE ELECT OUR NEXT PRESIDENT BY POPULAR VOTE?

Here a great website that debunks many myths about this subject and explains the process that is well underway in all 50 states to elect the President of the United States by popular vote.



MY 2 CENTS:

Many believe that today's electoral college system is blatantly undemocratic, stuck in time when voting was a privilege reserved for the few - white, male property owners. Voting rights for women and non-white citizens came very slowly, as we pursued a more perfect union. It was not until 1920 that the United States passed the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote. It was not until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that we outlawed discriminatory voting practices that preyed on African Americans and other minorities in the United States. Since 1965, we have generally made voter registration  easier, lowered the voting age to 18, expanded election hours, expanded absentee voting, implemented early voting - all because we get it. America works better when each of our citizens has a say. One person, one vote.

Today, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the practice of one person, one vote generally applies to electing local officials, governors, members of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate. Yet here we are, almost 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, still disenfranchising millions of voters of all races and geographic regions from our Presidential elections. Shouldn't 'perfecting our union' apply to Presidential elections?

In spite of its original intent, the electoral college stands as a throwback to our very darkest days of voter disenfranchisement. Having just elected and inaugurated our first African American President, it seems inconceivable that we still accept an 'election' process that disenfranchises whole states and large groups at a time.  The electoral college is the major force behind the creation of swing states, battleground states, and turning our Presidential elections into open warfare between 'red' and 'blue' states. The winner-take-all aspect of the electoral college has encouraged political marketers to make blue states bluer and red states redder.  Consequently, voters in super 'red' states who vote for a Democratic presidential candidate may look forward to casting more inconsequential votes in the foreseeable future. Likewise, voters in super 'blue' states who vote for a Republican candidate may also  look forward to more of the same - a wasted vote.

How perfect is a union where Democratic votes don't count in Georgia, Florida or Texas, and Republican votes don't count in Maryland, California, New York or Massachusetts? The required legislation has already been introduced in most states. 

What are YOUR thoughts?  BlogBrains.Info  wants to hear from you! 




 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

  • 3/4/2009 11:42 AM tbird wrote:
    I have long felt that if is grossly undemocratic NOT to elect our president by popular vote. Are there any polls available on this issue?
    Reply to this
    1. 3/4/2009 11:47 AM oliveoil wrote:
      I agree. Regardless of who it may help most in the next election, we need to quit screwing Repubs in NY and Dems in Texas. A great place to start for polls and other stuff on this issue is www.popvote.org
      Reply to this
      1. 3/4/2009 12:32 PM roadbug wrote:
        I'm so glad to find a blog covering this issue. Besides www.popvote.org, you can find all kinds of useful, more detailed info at www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php
        Reply to this
    2. 8/5/2010 5:23 AM Pleasanton dentist wrote:
      These are one of the few posts that I actually care to comment on. I find this blogger an inspiration and is definitely worth following. I've became a subscriber too, so please keep me updated.
      Reply to this
  • 3/11/2009 9:21 AM BobR wrote:
    Good idea that is unlikely to go anywhere. Too much going on about other issues to allow this to come up. Powerful interests don't want this.
    Reply to this
  • 7/20/2009 6:56 AM roulette game downloads wrote:
    Having just elected and inaugurated our first African American President, it seems inconceivable that we still accept an 'election' process that disenfranchises whole states and large groups at a time.
    Reply to this
  • 9/18/2009 7:57 AM Nat wrote:
    Though some problems exist (and there is'nt any sphere where they don't) I believe the election system in the US is nice. It wasn't created in one day and there is a long way of its development. I've read a book about it, found it at the files search engine http://rapid4me.com . You know in many countries the elections are much worse and they don't even reflect the opinion of people. In my opinion the system we have is not perfect but it is almost the best of possible ones.
    Reply to this
  • 9/21/2009 3:21 PM Introduction to iPhone wrote:
    I admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time... however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues.
    Great stuff as usual....
    Reply to this
  • 9/28/2009 3:41 AM Dave wrote:
    Popular vote makes sense - it's the only way to ensure EACH vote has exactly the same value. So many dead votes in States that clearly have a red or blue bias. Many of the opposing parties don't bother to vote in such cases.



    Reply to this
  • 10/7/2009 9:31 AM Anonymous wrote:
    I think its great how everyone now has the right to vote, even us ladies lol! On a recent gap year to prague, i met with quite a few american students during the obama election process and they were so passinate about their vote, was gtreat to see, us gb's just dont have a clue, we watch our country go downhill without doin anythibg about it.
    Reply to this
  • 10/16/2009 10:43 AM sale of goods act wrote:
    I have been going round in circles, trying to find this information! Thanks so much, this is very helpful, keep posting!
    Reply to this
  • 10/22/2009 6:23 AM excel formulas wrote:
    Interesting blog..have bookmarked this page so keep up the good work!
    Reply to this
  • 10/27/2009 3:10 PM werk buitenland wrote:
    I think that would be the matter of the rights of the people who are trying to make it big, in the process of their upliftment and making for the development of the country.
    Reply to this
  • 11/10/2009 1:49 AM Luke wrote:
    Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) to a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement might occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation. Indirectly, it may occur when certain groups are not properly registered to vote, either on purpose or because of serious technical (computer) problems. These people are willing to vote, but can not exercise their right, due to registration.

    Thanks,



    Reply to this
  • 11/29/2009 2:36 AM VCS wrote:
    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
    Reply to this
  • 12/1/2009 1:25 AM sexy women blog wrote:
    that is unlikely to go anywhere. Too much going on about other issues to allow this to come up. Powerful interests don't want this.
    Reply to this
  • 12/4/2009 6:46 AM app development melbourne wrote:
    We can even vote through our mobile phones which is also counted.
    Reply to this
  • 2/11/2010 7:25 AM vandna wrote:
    I don't think so ... it is good to have a last check and balance ... better safe than sorry! In the case of republicans they don't have super delegates because republicans are clones they all do the same things more or less. Democrats don't trust who could become their nominee so they need to have the safety net of the superdelegates to make sure some crazy guy is not nominated because democrats are more liberal and therefore more diverse. It is the same concept with the electoral collage and clearly it is needed judging by the people running this time around.


    Reply to this
  • 2/17/2010 11:13 AM Quercetin Supplements wrote:
    Well you have explained it ina really nice way but we cant really get with it and i think it might be difficult
    Reply to this
  • 2/19/2010 1:43 AM Nova wrote:
    This is an old article, why bring it up?
    Reply to this
  • 2/22/2010 11:51 PM Keno Guide wrote:
    I am just new to your blog and just spent about 1 hour and 30 minutes lurking and reading. I think I will frequent your blog from now on after going through some of your posts. I will definitely learn a lot from them.Some pension plans provide members if they are disabled. This may take the form of the early entry into a retirement plan of a disabled member under normal retirement age.
    Reply to this
  • 3/12/2010 8:09 AM Los Angeles Airport wrote:
    i think In this election four men, all from the same party and were running for President. Each was popular in a different section of the country: Adams in the Northeast and Jackson in the South/Southwest Crawford in the South/Mid-Atlantic and Clay in the West. When the votes were counted Jackson had won the most electoral and popular votes and but had failed to carry a majority of electoral votes. It fell upon the House of Representatives to choose the president from among the top three electoral vote getters Jackson Adams and Crawford..........
    Reply to this
  • 3/13/2010 1:36 AM Los Angeles Airport wrote:
    i think In this election four men, all from the same party and were running for President. Each was popular in a different section of the country: Adams in the Northeast and Jackson in the South/Southwest Crawford in the South/Mid-Atlantic and Clay in the West. When the votes were counted Jackson had won the most electoral and popular votes and but had failed to carry a majority of electoral votes.....


    Reply to this
  • 3/13/2010 2:05 AM emergency locksmith services wrote:
    nice post and Popular vote refers to the candidate who wins the largest portion of the population's vote. This does not necessarily determine the winner of the election as the Electoral College occasionally favors the second place candidate...................


    Reply to this
  • 3/15/2010 2:35 AM Bathroom Remodeling wrote:
    Presidential candidates now have no reason to campaign in states they are sure of winning or losing. In recent elections and candidates have spent two thirds of their time and money in six closely divided states--Florida Ohio Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Michigan and Minnesota-and 99 percent of their ad dollars in 16 states..........


    Reply to this
  • 3/16/2010 6:28 AM Play Bingo Online Games wrote:
    the candidate who won the Electoral College vote and did not win the popular vote. Besides forgetting the 50 other elections where the Electoral College agrees with the popular vote and The critics ignore the fact that the popular vote was not a true indicator of the will of the people in 1824. In fact and popular vote totals weren't even kept for elections before this one....................


    Reply to this
  • 3/16/2010 8:04 AM Biographies wrote:
    "Many believe that today's electoral college system is blatantly undemocratic"
    And they are right....


    Reply to this
  • 3/16/2010 11:59 PM Play Best Online Casino Games wrote:
    The most compelling and practical alternative is promoted by a bipartisan group called National Popular Vote. The NPV proposal calls for legislatures to pass bills committing their state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide


    Reply to this
  • 3/17/2010 1:58 AM Fox Sports Guide wrote:
    Popular vote refers to the candidate who wins the largest portion of the population's vote. This does not necessarily determine the winner of the election and as the Electoral College occasionally favors the second place candidate.............


    Reply to this
  • 3/17/2010 4:24 AM Online Casino Resources wrote:
    The next president will inherit leadership of a nation that is still the most powerful in the world a nation rich with the continued promise of its dynamic and increasingly diverse population a nation that could and must again inspire mobilize and lead the world. At the same time...........
    http://blogbrains.info/2009/03/02/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-what-and-why.aspx#AddComment
    Reply to this
  • 3/19/2010 5:39 AM reseller hosting wrote:
    That would be great. I mean, let's have one of those shows where people clap their favorite person. The guy with the most claps should be elected!
    Reply to this
  • 4/6/2010 6:04 AM Keno virtuale wrote:
    I don't think so ... it is good to have a last check and balance ... better safe than sorry! In the case of republicans they don't have super delegates because republicans are clones they all do the same things more or less. Democrats don't trust who could become their nominee so they need to have the safety net of the superdelegates to make sure some crazy guy is not nominated because democrats are more liberal and therefore more diverse. It is the same concept with the electoral collage and clearly it is needed judging by the people running this time around.
    Reply to this
  • 4/16/2010 2:20 PM fence posts wrote:
    Adams in the Northeast and Jackson in the South/Southwest Crawford in the South/Mid-Atlantic and Clay in the West. When the votes were counted Jackson had won the most electoral and popular votes and but had failed to carry a majority of electoral votes.....
    Reply to this
  • 4/18/2010 11:59 PM the jump manual wrote:
    You know in many countries the elections are much worse and they don't even reflect the opinion of people. In my opinion the system we have is not perfect but it is almost the best of possible ones.
    Reply to this
  • 4/20/2010 12:19 AM Art & Humanities wrote:
    We at Demos have been dedicated to achieving an inclusive and vibrant democracy since we first opened our doors ten years ago. Greater voter participation and civic engagement ensure that we--all Americans--decide how this country is governed.................
    Reply to this
  • 4/27/2010 4:57 AM Baby Bedding wrote:
    The NPV proposal calls for legislatures to pass bills committing their state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide
    Reply to this
  • 4/27/2010 7:05 AM Poker Boni wrote:
    This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. They wanted to ensure that support for a President was broad as well as deep, so that a candidate who received 90 percent of the vote in one region and a slim majority of votes nationally would not be elected against the will of the test of the country.


    Reply to this
  • 4/29/2010 5:18 AM trap wrote:
    Interesting blog..have bookmarked this page so keep up the good work!
    Reply to this
  • 5/2/2010 3:35 AM Thermostat wrote:
    I have personally never voted before. I have not in the past felt that my vote was worthy. In the future I plan to actually look into the candidates so that I can make a valuable vote.
    Reply to this
  • 5/5/2010 2:14 AM Classified ads wrote:
    the past ten years Native American grass-root groups have used the Internet to link-up and organize and get out the Native vote. In this decade alone and Americans have watched the voting percentage rate between presidential candidates close tighter each race......
    Reply to this
  • 5/10/2010 10:37 PM Diana Talbott wrote:
    I have never voted in an election before and I am thinking to for the first time. I want to learn more about the candidates before casting my vote so I have been reading up a lot. 
    Reply to this
  • 5/12/2010 4:05 AM Fox Sports Guide wrote:
    the candidate who won the Electoral College vote and did not win the popular vote. Besides forgetting the 50 other elections where the Electoral College agrees with the popular vote and critics conveniently ignore the factors that caused these three situations.............


    Reply to this
  • 5/21/2010 6:23 AM page de casinos wrote:
    In some states, a candidate for either the Democratic or Republican Party nomination must submit a certain number of signatures from registered voters. In many states, this requirement is waived (dismissed) if candidates are major figures known to the public.
    Reply to this
  • 6/4/2010 3:12 AM limo to lax wrote:
     critics point out that Andrew Jackson won both the electoral vote and the popular vote and but the House of Representatives circumvented the will of the people and chose John Quincy Adams as President..............
    Reply to this
  • 6/9/2010 11:24 PM U T wrote:
    Democrats don't trust who could become their nominee so they need to have the safety net of the superdelegates to make sure some crazy guy is not nominated because democrats are more liberal and therefore more diverse. It is the same concept with the electoral collage and clearly it is needed judging by the people running this time around.
    Reply to this
  • 7/24/2010 4:26 PM Jared wrote:
    I am not completely up to speed on this but I read recently that this seems to be catching on. Am I right that there is currently something in Congress about this?
    Reply to this
  • 7/30/2010 11:35 AM Porsche Parts wrote:
    The electoral college is the major force behind the creation of swing states, battleground states, and turning our Presidential elections into open warfare between 'red' and 'blue' states.
    Reply to this
  • 8/3/2010 6:12 AM unlock iphone wrote:
    The NPV proposal calls for legislatures to pass bills committing their state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide
    Reply to this
  • 8/5/2010 4:41 AM Mark wrote:
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.