Wednesday Wrap-Up
Until yesterday’s epic blog post on Republican atonement, I had been fairly quiet here on the Cauldron, and for that, I apologize. But you’ve got to understand. My life is a whirlwind of paparazzi, adoring fans, autograph sessions, and women sitting in the trees around my house “trying to get a good look.” After the enormously successful Tea Party last Wednesday, I feel like things are starting to finally settle down, and with that will come more of my witty musings here on the Cauldron. To kick all of this off, I’ve decided to create a weekly wrap-up post on things I deem important. Expect everything from Supreme Court rulings to discussion of the ridiculous ending of the latest episode of 24. (that Jack Bauer is quite the problem solver isn’t he?)
Anyway, without further adieu, here are some great things we’ve been doing at Independence recently:
- ***By now I’m sure you’ve heard about “National Popular Vote,” aka House Bill 1299. If you believe Colorado should remain relevant in elections, you ought to think twice about 1299, and read Amy Oliver’s latest op-ed, aptly titled If National Popular Vote Wins, We Lose. (Side note: Check out our cartoonist Ben Hummel’s take on 1299 here.
- ***Vince Carroll’s op-ed in yesterday’s Denver Post discussed the enormous salaries those in the upper echelons of higher ed receive. Which is fine when times are great and everyone’s riding the gravy train, but what about during the tough times… like now for instance? Vince cited our own Jessica Corry to support his arguments, as Jessica’s done quite a bit of research on the subject – including this response to CU’s Bruce Benson.
- ***Senior fellow in Human Rights, Habtamu Dugo, was recently honored with this great article on his work with translating Google and its search capabilities into his native language – Afaan Oromoo. Now other Ethiopians can enjoy the fruits of Google. Great job Habtamu!
- ***The absurdly titled “Health Care Affordability Act” (think: card check’s ridiculous title “Employee Free Choice Act”) has been signed into law by Governor Ritter. This secret sick tax was fought by Health Care Policy Center director Linda Gorman on all fronts. Even going as far as writing a scathing, fact filled comment on this ridiculous Denver Post op-ed in favor of the secret sick tax. Scroll down to the comments, you’ll see Linda’s immaculate retort.
- ***The legislature has been discussing sentencing reform, but Governor Ritter is unwilling to do anything about it until he “gets more information.” Well, that’s good to hear, because Justice Policy Center director Mike Krause is a walking encyclopedia of sentencing reform information. Read his stance on sentencing reform here in this op-ed.
- ***Finally, in addition to washing my car, massaging my feet, and getting my lunch, interns do some interesting stuff every now and again. Take this for example. The Fiscal Policy Center’s intern Luke Jackson did some incredible work for center director Penn Pfiffner titled, “How Much of the Federal Debt Do You Owe?” All I have to say about that is… yikes.
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
22 Apr 2009 at 7:42 pm
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 would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,659 state legislators — 763 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 896 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 27 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
22 Apr 2009 at 7:43 pm