Did you ever wonder http://raylewisproshop.com/Joe_Flacco_Jersey why some states are more equal than others in terms of Presidential attention? President Barack Obama, like his predecessors, spends an inordinate amount of time barnstorming swing states under the guise of promoting his domestic agenda. About half of his domestic travel has been to just 13 states, which coincidentally happen to be battleground states. He has spent more than 50 days in these critical showdown states in 2011. By contrast, all ten of the states he has not visited as President are non-competitive "safe states," where the winner has been determined on paper before a single voter marks his/her ballot.
Welcome to another year of electoral politics. When the general election begins in earnest, those Americans who are unfortunate enough to live in the 35 states that are not likely to be contested will watch the election drama unfold from the electoral sidelines. For them, the Presidential race is merely a spectator sport. These candidates will spend their time singing the praises of ethanol in Iowa, will tour the everglades in Florida, and will discuss the effects of international trade agreements on steal workers in Youngstown, Ohio. The ultimate irony of all this is the fact that in the 2008 General election, the two major presidential nominees spent a whopping 98% of their time and money in just 15 states.
The states with the largest populations: California, Texas, and New York, respectively, are used only as an ATM machine, where candidates parachute in, hold a fundraiser, collect money from the state's financial elite, and leave without meeting the state's rank-and-file citizens.
The needs of swing states take an obscene precedence over the needs of the rest of the nation. For example, in 1996, Bill Clinton designated 1.7 million acres of canyon lands located in Utah as a national monument and thus off-limits to development. Clinton did this despite widespread opposition from the entire Utah Congressional delegation and the state's voters. Interestingly, Mr. Clinton signed the order not in Utah, but in Arizona, a showdown state where the move was popular.
Similarly, in 2002, George W. Bush, a vociferous exponent of free trade, uncharacteristically slapped a tariff on foreign steel to protect domestic steel manufacturers in the electorally imperative Rust Belt.
Candidates listen extra closely to swing state voters like the General Motors employee in Michigan who supports automobile tariffs, the Cuban-American in Florida who wants to continue the trade embargo on her native land, and the Indiana farmer concerned about regulation on the planting of crops. Alternatively, safe state voters, including the Massachusetts fisherman struggling with regulations on catches, the Native American of South Dakota lacking job opportunities, and the NASA employee at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, worried about budget cuts to the agency, are virtually ignored.
There is presently an effort underway to make every vote equal. The National Popular Vote Initiative, as it is called, is an interstate compact, where participating states agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. In effect, once enough states collectively reach 270 electoral votes (the number required to win the Presidential election), the compact takes effect. Constitution, and that altering it is an affront to our Founding Fathers. They view any move by the states to switch their method of awarding electors as a way of circumventing the Founders' intent. However, in actuality, the winner-take-all rule currently employed in 48 states and the District of Columbia, was not in fact instituted or even conceived by the Founding Fathers. In fact, only three of the states employed this electoral method in the nation's inaugural election of 1789. States began to shift to this system not out of any reverence for the Founding Fathers, but to ensure that the majority party in a particular state would have an advantage over rival parties. Accordingly, the driving force behind adoption of the present electoral system was partisan politics, not part of a grand design of governance presented by the Founders. Not surprisingly, it was all too familiar partisan parochial politics that effectuated this method of selecting presidential electors.
The Constitution does not offer a uniform method for the states. Constitution) or during the proceedings at the Constitutional Convention. Rather, respecting federalism, that power is delegated to the states. Supreme Court affirmed this principle inMcPherson v. Blackerin 1892: "The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the Constitution of the United States." Many Americans, however, have come to the mendacious conclusion that the Founding Fathers endorsed the winner-take-all rule.
Another fallacious argument is that small states would not receive any attention if the winner-take-all method were jettisoned. The fact is that with the exception of New Hampshire, each of the smallest 13 states is a safe state and is disregarded already. Wyoming and Idaho are two of the reddest states in the nation. Neither has chosen a Democrat for President since Lyndon B. Johnson swept the nation in a landslide in 1964. Neither is likely to be a showdown state anytime soon. In 2008, Republican John McCain won Idaho with a resounding 63.1% of the vote. He won Wyoming with 64.8% of the vote. In addition, McCain won Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, and South Ray Lewis Jersey Dakota by formidable margins.
Contrariwise, the other six smallest states are some of the bluest in the nation. In fact, Obama's best electoral performance was in the District of Columbia, with just 3 electoral votes. His next four best showings were in three of the six smallest states: Hawaii, Vermont, and Rhode Island, respectively (McCain did not http://raylewisproshop.com/Vonta_Leach_Jersey win a single county in any of these states). Obama won the other two smallest states, Delaware, and Vermont, by over 15% of the vote.
Four times in American history, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and in 2000, the presidential candidate who secured the most popular votes was declared the loser of the race because of our winner-take-all-electoral system. In addition, there have been Presidential elections when this electoral outcome was barely missed. In the 1880 Presidential election, Republican James Garfielddefeated Democrat Winfield S. Hancockby A.J. Green Jersey just 7,368 popular votes. In the Electoral Collegethe margin was much wider with Garfield garnering 214 votes and Hancock mustering just 155 votes. In 1968, Republican Richard M. http://www.nicesteelers.com/LaMarr_Woodley_Jersey_LW318 Nixondefeated Democrat Hubert Humphreyby less than one percentage point in the popular vote, yet Bengals Jersey in the Electoral College, Nixon won by over 100 electoral votes. In 2004, Republican George W. Politics where the candidate who wins the most votes may be declared the loser of the election. The National Popular Vote plan was developed to reverse this possibility. It also comports with the intent of the Founding Fathers and with the principle of federalism by respecting the sovereignty of the states: Letting the states, not the Federal Government, decide on how to award their electors. Common sense dictates that the candidate with the most votes should win. This compact will make that happen in a way that respects state sovereignty.