Wednesday, January 08, 2020

Kansas City, MO State Rep. Proposes National Popular Vote To Replace Electoral College

The Downtown Missouri State Rep. said she wasn't going to run for reelection is now termed out and coming up with interesting ideas at the conclusion of her tenure. Her latest:

Kansas City state rep pre-files bill to elect president by national popular vote

A Missouri state representative has pre-filed legislation that would adopt an agreement to elect the president of the United States by national popular vote. Rep. Judy Morgan, D-Kansas City, submitted filed House Bill 1949 Monday, which would add a section to Chapter 128 of the Missouri Revisor of Statutes, Election of Electors and Electoral Districts - Congressional Districts.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Should see some of the other bills this wack job Rep. Judy Morgan, D-Kansas City has been a part of.

Anonymous said...

Would agree to this as long as we have strong voter ID laws. Quid Pro Quo.

Anonymous said...

He wants to turn Missouri into a vassal of New York and California and few other big states...then we will truly be flyover land.

Anonymous said...

States would have little reason to stay in the union if their power was minimized

Anonymous said...

This idiot needs to learn about Constitutional Conventions.

NicK said...

damn right im sick of my vote getting canceled out by the rest of the state

Anonymous said...

She should just introduce a bill to bring World Peace and be done with it.

She makes Carwash Cleaver seem rational.

Anonymous said...

Let’s cancel about half the countries votes because of some sore loser, sounds like a wonderful idea doesn’t it, effing idiots

Anonymous said...

The framers knew what they were doing. There is a reason we have an electoral college and not a popular vote. Disenfranchising 78% of the population's vote not in California or New York is no way to elect leaders. Can you imagine if Schumer, Pelosi, and Bloomberg ran this country? Johnson County citizens would have to wake up next to their illegal alien neighbors, courtesy of tax dollars paid by Johnson Countians. Can't wait!

Anonymous said...

Actually, this may result in better outcomes for Republicans. Remember, about 40% of Californians and probably as many New Yorkers voted for the great pumpkin, and their votes counted for nothing. Maybe she should reconsider.

Anonymous said...

Idiotic!!!! If you like California and New York dictating your life, that's the way to do it. Ban straws, shit on the sidewalk, needles all over, now large sugary drinks and on and on. Yeah asshole, popular vote means coastal pricks will rule you lives down to the last detail. People are fleeing both states. Why? Eliminate the electoral college and you will find out quickly.

toto said...

Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN).

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill

In 2017, Saul Anuzis and Michael Steele, the former chairmen of the Michigan and national Republican parties, wrote that the National Popular Vote bill was “an idea whose time has come”.

On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote

In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill

toto said...

In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

In total New York state and California (84 electors in total) cast 16% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20) (87 total) cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.

toto said...

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

The U.S. Constitution says "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 normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by state legislatures with governors making changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the 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.

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.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

toto said...

With National Popular Vote,
Every vote in the country would actually count equally toward selecting the winner. Candidates would have an incentive to campaign in all states instead of ignoring 38 "safe" states and "lost cause" states. Think it through. Republicans in California and New York could actually help elect a Republican President. Democrats in Colorado and Texas could actually help elect a Democratic President. Now their votes are meaningless because states award all their electoral voters to the statewide winner.

With National Popular Vote, every voter, in every state, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
All votes would count equally towards the national vote

The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as New Hampshire or Florida. The National Popular Vote bill would give voice to every voter in the country, as opposed to treating voters for candidates who did not win a plurality in the state as if they did not exist.

The National Popular Vote bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to presidential candidates.
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

toto said...

The bill would NOT eliminate the Electoral College.

Anonymous said...

Toto is spamming us.

Anonymous said...

if the Democrats are pimpin' it --you KNOW it's a scam

Anonymous said...

If toto touts it, you know it's not good for the country.

Anonymous said...

Toto has obviously studied the issue more than anyone on this blog.

Anonymous said...

@5:56,6:12 and 7:02 are Republicans, and they know that no Republican has won the Presidency with a majority of the Popular vote since Eisenhower!

Anonymous said...

If you lived in a rural part of the country, wouldn't you feel disenfranchised by this proposal?

Seems a bit tyrannical to subvert the constitution in such a manner.

toto said...

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“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 National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

toto said...

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws, in some states, big city Democratic votes can outnumber all other people not voting Democratic in the state. All of a state’s votes may go to Democrats.

Without state winner-take-all laws, every conservative in a state that now predictably votes Democratic would count. Right now they count for 0

The current system completely ignores conservatives presidential voters in states that vote predictably Democratic.

toto said...

Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

59,849,899 people live in the 100 biggest cities.

59,492,267 people live in rural America.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.