Celtic's blog:

Staci Appel's blog:

Steve Kirby's blog:

Sen. Staci Appel pushes the National Vote Scam Bill, SF 227.

Sen. Staci Appel’s wacky bill (SF 227) will hurt Iowa voters in Presidential Elections.  Appel’s vote scam bill is simply a "Let-The-Big-States-Decide-The-President-For-Iowa" bill.   SF 227 would give Iowa's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. This is bad news for Iowans, for it will effectively centralize the power to elect the President of the United States into a very few large, and essentially urban states.

The founders envisioned and set up a process of fifty state elections for president as a check and balance on the power of the federal government.

Many of the same people who want to abolish the Electoral College are behind this fall back scheme to consolidate the power of a centralized state by revising the way the president is determined.

These are also many of the same people who want to abolish the First and Second Amendments by interpretation, because they can't repeal them directly.

A group called National Popular Vote is pushing HF 227 in the Iowa Legislature. SF 227 gives Iowa's electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. Over time this destroys a vital component of the U.S. Constitution and its system of checks and balances with diffusions of power.

So far New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland and Hawaii have passed laws mandating participation in a compact that goes into effect when the number of states adopting this method of assigning presidential electors reaches 271 electoral votes.

If passed, a few big states will decide who becomes president. California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Illinois and a few other states will become vote generating incubators for big-money political consultants. They will focus on vote-hauling and other schemes to generate extraordinary turn out in these urban dominate states, so as to win the popular vote at the national level.

Iowa voters will be ignored. The national political machines and their operators will take whatever minimal vote they get out of a state like Iowa, and focus all their activities on the big, vote-rich urban states.

Your State Senator, Staci Appel, Chairman of the State Government Committee, rammed this bill through committee without giving opponents a chance to speak against the bill.  Of course, Staci Appel had previously given some guy from liberal Vermont a long time in committee to advocate its passage.

Senator Appel showed her total bias against the average Iowa voter by playing this kind of game with the public input (or lack thereof) process. The bill passed committee 8 to 7.

Thankfully, Senator Randy Feenstra (R-2) objected to this and his work probably convinced two Democrats, embarrassed by Appel’s shenanigans, to vote against the bill.

SF 227 can be found here.

Comments

National Popular Vote good for Iowa and the United States

I may not agree with everything Sen. Appel has done, but I support her in pursuing a national popular vote for President. 

 

I think the national popular vote idea is good for Iowa and good for the country.  Presidential campaigns get away with only campaigning in a small portion of the country during the general election – the so called “swing states”.  Iowa’s been fortunate to have been in that group the last couple of elections, but that won’t always be the case (swing states change over time).  Once that happens, it’ll be ignored like 2/3rds of the country. 

 

As I looked into the national popular vote, I had some of the same concerns you listed, particularly about big cities dominating the race.  What I discovered was that isn’t the case now.  When candidates actually campaign everywhere and for every vote, big cities DON’T run the election.  Scott Brown got elected in Massachusetts despite losing Boston and the other big cities.  Pataki lost New York City and still won.  There are dozens of examples like this.  The reality is that the 50 largest cities (# 50 is Arlington, Texas) makeup only 19% of the country’s population. 

 

The Electoral College creates huge turnout disparities.  Turnout in swing states is more than 10% higher than in other states.  My family in Oklahoma knows their vote on Election Day doesn’t matter because the Republican candidate is going to win overwhelmingly anyway.  By creating a system of safe states where the overall vote totals don’t matter, the Electoral College diminishes the importance of voting in most states. 

 

There are a bunch of other reasons for conservatives to support the national popular vote proposal.  Here are some postings that I came across that make the case better than I could. 

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/15/is-there-a-conservative-case-for-national-popular-vote/

 

http://biggovernment.com/jroe/2010/08/06/opponents-of-the-national-popular-vote-have-it-wrong/

 

A cautionary note.

The user who posted this comment (Jack Jefferson) is from outside our voting district, his IP traces to a regional router named "sacramento.ca.sacra.comcast.net" however he is not violating any copyright laws by posting this original content, thus his comments shall remain.  I am including this cautionary note for both accuracy and fairness, as powerful outside forces do have their agendas and it is clear to me at least, that Staci Appel may in large part be shepherded by some powerful outside forces.  Unlike Staci Appel, I do not want to see Iowa become irrelevant in the selection of our President, I believe that our Founders would agree and suggest we continue to follow the Constitution.  Someone from California would have a lot to gain by eliminating the Electoral College, thus I thought it best to share the actual location of this contributor.

SF227

Yes, some of your statements are true.  The money would probably be focused in the big states.  However, it is possible and has happened several times in our history when the winner of the popular vote did not win the election.  This hardly seems fair either.  Plus, there are several states out there (California, Hawaii, most of the northeast) that would never vote for a Republican.  So, Republicans in those state feel that their votes don't count.  If you go to a system like this, then everyone's vote counts and there is no possibility that someone could come in second in popular vote and still become President. 

However, the best way to change this would be to amend the Constitution.

 

I would like to remind you

I would like to remind you that the United States of America was not founded as a Democracy, but rather as a Constitutional Republic.  A Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep, vote on what's for dinner.  In a Democracy, the sheep would be eaten, just as the Democrats want to vote your money into their collectivist pockets!  In a Constitutional Republic on the other hand, you still have that same democratic vote, however the Constitution states that sheep are not on the menu.  The early legislative body of our country were brilliant in conceiving of the Electoral College, as it gives us an equal voice, regardless if we are a small or large population state.  Without it, a Presidential candidate would need only campaign in (and win) New York and California — maybe Ohio as well, then forget about campaigning in all the other states and still win the Presidency.  You speak of fairness, so tell me, just how fair is this?

Granted, most Americans today would rather ride in the wagon, than pull it, thus they no longer care for the Electoral College — a 2001 Gallup poll noted "a majority of Americans have continually expressed support for an official amendment of the U.S. Constitution, that would allow for direct election of the president", a poll result which didn't change much when they re-ran it again in 2004.  Of course, the Democrats desperately want a direct election, as those few densly populated states that would swing the Presidential Election are predominantly Democrat — thus quickly assuring a one-party system, not exactly what our original Founders had envisioned for us!

Thus my arguments supporting the Electoral College may be boiled down to these specific points, which Staci Appel either does not understand, or does not work towards (as she apparently does not work for the people of Iowa).

    The Electoral College:
  • Prevents an urban-centric victory, since Iowa is not a densly populated urban center, the Electoral College prevents a candidate from winning the Presidency by simply winning in a few heavily populated urban areas, forcing the candidates to make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply had to win a national popular vote.
  • Maintains the federal character of the nation, since the United States of America is a federal coalition of component states, the collective opinion of even a small state (such as Iowa) merits attention at the federal level, greater than that given to a small, albeit numerically-equivalent portion of a highly populous state.
  • Enhances status of minority groups by encouraging candidates to court a wide variety of minorities and advocacy groups, otherwise, by making the votes of a given state an all or nothing affair, majority groups can provide the critical edge that allows a candidate to win, thus the Electoral College actually encourages stability through a solid two-party system.
  • Isolation of election problems, by limiting the impact of any election fraud, or similar problems, to the state where it occurs.  It prevents a party dominant in one state from dishonestly inflating the votes for a candidate and affecting the outcome.  Any recounts occur only on a state-by-state basis and not nationwide.
  • Neutralizes turnout disparities between the states, as factors that affect turnout, such as weather, vary greatly across our large nation rain or winter storms can impact voter participation in affected states.  Because the allocation of electoral votes is independent of each state's turnout, the Electoral College neutralizes the effect of all such turnout disparities between the states.
  • Maintains separation of powers, as the Constitution has separated government into three branches that check each other, to minimize threats to liberty and encourage deliberation of governmental acts.  Under the original framework, only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, with members of the Senate chosen by state legislatures, the President by the Electoral College and the judiciary by the President and the Senate.  The President was decided not to be elected directly in part due to fears that he could assert some national popular mandate that would undermine the legitimacy of the other branches, and potentially result in a fall toward tyranny.  Our Founders were brilliant and I hope my explanation has helped you to understand that although, to a simple mind, the direct election seems to be "more fair", the system we have in place now, is what keeps us free.

...and Freedom is Good!

The Twelfth Amendment (Amendment XII) to the United States Constitution: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Notice to readers.

A recent member, username "kohler" with a presumed fake email address (username "mvymvy@a-common-disposable-email-provider) and IP address 76.102.48.??? (santaclara.ca.comcast.net — well outside of our voting district) began copy/paste spamming this thread with copyrighted material from various sources, such as this, so his account was blocked and the copyrighted material removed.  I'm sorry I had to do this, but the focus of this website is Iowa district 37, thus members should be from within this district, plus it is illegal to copy and paste copyrighted material without permission.  In the future, please simply post links to the information you wish to share.  Thank you.