There is a growing possibility that the Presidential Election of 2012 will become a reprise of the Presidential Election Of 2000, where the winner of the popular vote does not win the Electoral College, and therefore does not become President of the United States.
This time, the Democratic incumbent, Barack Obama, would be the lucky recipient, while last time the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, was to become the fourth Presidential nominee to fail to win the popular vote but become President, after John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.
Some would say that such a result, with Obama being reelected, although losing the popular vote to Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, would be “justice” for what happened to Al Gore, the Democratic nominee in 2000.
But there is a major difference, in that Obama is already President, while Bush was competing for the position, but was not yet our President.
It would be the first time that a sitting President was reelected without the popular vote of the American people, and would make Republicans say he was “illegitimate” to be our President, something already said, but still would be a great tragedy,and probably guarantee another four years of stalemate and gridlock.
It would make, more likely, a move by the Republicans, if they controlled the House of Representatives, which seems likely at this point, to move to impeach the President, as they succeeded in doing to Bill Clinton in 1998.
It would be a political circus, which would paralyze the nation, and the Republican Party would do everything it could to undermine Obama, and to attempt to make it seem as if he was a failed President, to stain his name in history, even if they had been unable to dislodge him from the White House.
It is hoped that this whole scenario will not happen, and that Barack Obama will end up winning the popular vote, but with the impending Hurricane Sandy, likely to cut down voting totals in the Northeast and Midwest, considered strongly Democratic at least in the Northeast, it could assist Romney in winning the national popular vote, and even the Electoral College win is certainly possible for Romney, although still considered unlikely.
With the impending storm, there is a lot to pray for, regarding safety of the population in the Northeast and Midwest, as well as the future of the nation after the Presidential Election Of 2012. We are living in very difficult times, and have to hope for reason and tolerance, without any certainty of either occurring!
Presidential elections don’t have to be this way.
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. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.
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 presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
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. 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.
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 recent 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: AZ – 67%, 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 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc