The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (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 National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 21 legislative chambers (one house in CO, AR, ME, NC, and WA, and two houses in MD, IL, HI, CA, MA, NJ, RI, and VT). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

I expect that most Greens, as with most US citizens, would be accepting of an approach which moves from a two-person per state system to one where each state has a minimum of some sort, perhaps one per state, and each may have a maximum, say four senators. That’s off the cuff and not evaluated at all, but that sort of approach would preserve the benefits of having a higher house while expanding democratic representation. I assume many would believe that to be un-democratic as well.

There are any number of approaches that could be considered. Perhaps I should be permitted to vote for Cindy Sheehan. While I happen to live in South Carolina, there is no doubt that she represents me better than John Spratt, my congressman.

I think the point worth considering is that the Green Party is not looking only at incremental improvements, but is also willing to evaluate fundamental changes as well. That is not the sort of thing the “majors” do, and frankly, I am more than a bit tired of every Green position here being subjected to rounds of attacks by the same voices every time we are covered here. How would you like it if I made snyde comments on every story about the CP, LP or others? Don’t for a minute assume that stories about the other parties offer no such opportunities. In short, this is not exactly encouraging.

As to Chris Cole’s comments, I am just glad he stopped attending Charlotte Area Green Party meetings and removed himself from our mailing lists.

Of course, none of this really matters much, considering that neither of the candidates with a realistic shot at winning are worth voting for.

Keep the stretched squandered military might of the American fascist imperial global empire tuant as the infrastructure literally rots! .

I first found out about the electorial college in the 1960s. Since being an elementary student, I have never, ever, ever tolerated it.

I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. Did I mention that I hate it?

And this is wrong – it should be changed. It is time to fix a mistake made 221 years ago. The Electoral College is a mechanism put into the Constitution because the ‘founding fathers’didn’t trust the American People to select the President directly. This is why we ended up with morons like George W. Bush as President.

This statement in the story:

The civil action seeks enforcement of the ‘Mal-Apportionment Penalty’ provided in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which mandates a reduction of a state’s presidential electors and congressional representatives if “the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States… is denied… or in any way abridged.”

Is relevant. However what I read in this was not that the 1/3 who voted for the “loser” were denied the right “to vote at any election for the choice of electors…” but that ALL VOTERS in many states are DENIED the right to vote for “electors” or candidates that are not Republicans or Democrats due to restrictive ballot access laws.

I don’t know if this story addresses that very well, but I personally think it is relevant.

“If two thirds of the voters in a nation vote for a candidate from Party A and one third vote for a candidate from Party B, and the winner-take-all rule gives the election to the candidate from Party A, then one third of the voters have been disenfranchised . . “,. said Special K, a reporter for the Disassociated Press, extending Ms. Grage’s argument to the more general case..