The Electoral College is administered by the National Archives and Records Administration. The Electoral College is "not a place but a process." The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President.
In an effort to water down and change the Constitutionally established Electoral College, liberal progressives have been advancing a notion alled the National Popular Vote which would result in states surrendering their Electoral College vote. As detailed in a prior article last year, "A group called National Popular Vote (NPV) is pushing state legislatures to enter into a compact that calls for them to allocate their electoral votes in a particular presidential election to the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide rather than to the contender who gets the most votes in their state. NPV argues that the legislation "would reform the Electoral College so that the electoral vote reflects the choice of the nation's voters" for president."
In another ARRA News Service article, it was identified that Arkansas dallied with this proposed item and fortunately it died in the Arkansas Senate after being passed by the Arkansas House. At that time, after 135 years of political control in Arkansas, Democrats were willing to surrender the people's votes to the East and west coast liberal agenda. . . .
As an example, if Bill Clinton had won the majority vote in Arkansas for President but had not won the most votes nationwide, then Arkansas electoral votes would NOT have been voted for Bill Clinton. In the last presidential election, the peoples of Arkansas voted in the majority (58.72%) for John McCain and 38.86% voted for Barack Obama and 2.42% voted for other people. Arkansas casts it electoral college votes for John McCain in accordance with the majority vote. However, under the proposed bill, the electoral college votes would have been awarded to Barrack Obama because he won California, New York and other highly populated states. . . .On Friday, August 5th, members of the Republican National Committee met in Tampa, Florida. In addition to their usual agenda items overseeing the direction of the RNC and reviewing the national activities of the National Republican Party, they were confronted by the discussion advanced by a limited number of left of center Republicans concerning the National Popular Vote initiative. To address this situation, a resolution opposing the National Popular Vote initiative was put forth to the committee. No members voted in support of the NPV agenda. All members voting, except one, voted for a resolution opposing the NPV. One member voted present. And, the chief advocate who precipitated the need for the resolution opposing the NPV discussion skipped out on the vote as detailed latter.
It was never intended for the President to be elected by popular vote but that the votes by the states should be weighted (thus the electoral votes) thus providing a more fair playing field to represent all of the people of the United States. Only four times in history (1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000) has the electoral college vote not also resulted in the same outcome as the general national popular vote; when more of the people in a larger geographic areas of the US supported a different president than those voting from the highly dense populated areas. The electoral college worked. Much of the reaction to change the electoral college by the democrats is in reaction to the failure of Al Gore to win the presidency. But even in the 2000 Arkansas election, Gore in spite of the fact that President Clinton campaigned in Arkansas for Gore. Bush received 51% of the vote, Gore 46%, Others 3%. . . . This proposed action has been one of the major actions items at the Democratic National Committee . . . .
The Washington Times identified in a related article:
"The popular vote initiative is an attempt to solve a problem we don’t have, but it will create problems we don’t want,” said Tennessee RNC member John Ryder.It was disturbing to learn that a past candidate (twice defeated) for the RNC chairmanship, Saul Anuzis, was behind the effort pushing for the RNC to support NPV. "Michigan RNC member Saul Anuzis, identified himself as the leader of a small group on the national committee who supported the popular vote change." He told the The Washington Times "that he and five others on the national committee had 'expressed that support and at least 20 were open and undecided, but not willing to take any hits for something they didn’t care that much about.'" No names just innuendos were identified by Anuzis. He did not make his vote public but instead opted to leave before the resolution was voted on.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and other officials said their aim was to send a message to state legislatures around the country that that the GOP is dead set against switching to a national popular vote to elect the president and unalterably opposed to ditching the Constitution’s mandate for an electoral college vote count to decide presidential elections.
According to The Washington Times reporter Ralph Z. Hallow, Anuzis "left the Marriott Tampa Waterside ballroom before the vote on the resolution, telling people on his way out that he had a plane to catch." He later claimed in an email that, “It’s [NPV's] now on everyone’s radar and that’s good.”
Saul Anuzis has twice tried to gain the Chairmanship of the Republican National Committee. Anuzis is now on "everyone's radar and that's good." Anyone, including Saul Anuzis, who supports inane populism concept right out of the progressive playbook, has no place being the RNC Chairman.
Tags: RNC, RNC Committee, Reince Priebus, Tampa, Florida, NPV, National Popular Vote, Electoral College, liberal agenda, Saul Anuzis To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment