This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=182657
Sunday, July 25, 2010
——————————————————————————–
FROM JEROME CORSI’S RED ALERT
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Guess what part of the Constitution goes next!
Drastic change in works to revamp whole Electoral College
——————————————————————————–
Posted: July 24, 2010
11:05 pm Eastern
——————————————————————————–
WorldNetDaily
Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and columnist. Red Alert subscriptions are $99 a year or $9.95 per month for credit card users. Annual subscribers will receive a free autographed copy of “The Late Great USA,” a book about the careful deceptions of a powerful elite who want to undermine our nation’s sovereignty.
Democrats have found yet another way to circumvent the U.S. Constitution: Bypass the Electoral College and elect a president by popular vote without first passing an amendment to the founding document, Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert reports.
The Massachusetts Senate has joined five other states in passing a National Popular Vote bill to do just that. It approved the legislation July 15 by a margin of 28-10.
National Popular Vote website displays this map showing legislation’s advance in various states.
The National Popular Vote, which already passed the Massachusetts House, is within one final “enactment vote” in the Massachusetts Senate before the measure can be ready for the governor’s signature, the Boston Globe reported.
“Under the proposed law, all 12 of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally,” according to the report.
(Story continues below)
“The idea is that Massachusetts will instruct its electors in the Electoral College to vote for the candidate receiving the majority of presidential election votes nationally, regardless of how the state’s own voters cast their ballots,” Corsi explained.
The Massachusetts National Popular Vote bill, if signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick, will not go into effect until states possessing a majority of Electoral College votes pass similar legislation.
The movement is popularly characterized as “One Person, One Vote for President,” a slogan designed to suggest the Electoral College method of counting presidential votes is “unfair” under a 14th Amendment “One Vote, One Person” definition of voter rights.
Critics fear the movement, if successful, could turn the entire nation into a potential “Florida 2000” battleground in close elections.
“Even in states where a candidate lost by a huge margin, every vote would need to be examined, a catastrophic, costly scenario,” John Cork wrote in The New York Times.
“It would become possible, in a three-party race, for a candidate to fail to win even a single state but take the popular vote,” he continued. “Do we really want to create a system where New York electoral votes could be determined by voters in Utah or Alaska?”
Corsi argues that a national movement to pass National Popular Vote legislation in the state legislatures has been motivated by Democrats who remain fixated on the idea that George W. Bush “stole” the 2000 presidential election, supposedly by relying on a Supreme Court decision to get Florida’s electoral votes. They say the decision denied Al Gore the presidency, even though Gore got the majority of popular votes cast throughout the United States.
Once enough states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of the 538 electors nationally) have enacted similar laws, the presidential candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, regardless of how other states vote or how their electors are distributed.
Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland and Washington have already adopted national-popular-vote bills.
These states add up to 61 electoral votes, 23 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the legislation: Illinois, 20 electoral votes; New Jersey, 15 votes; Hawaii, 4 votes; Maryland, 10 votes; and Washington state, 11 votes.
The bill has passed 30 legislative chambers in 20 states, Corsi wrote. The National Popular Vote movement is already one-fourth of the way to accomplishing its goal.
“If the National Public Vote movement succeeds,” he added, “the president might be chosen by the popular-vote winner in 10 or 11 of the most populous states.”
For more information on the widespread support for the movement, read Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, “The Obama Nation.”
Red Alert’s author, who received a doctorate from Harvard in political science in 1972, is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and (with co-author John E. O’Neill) “Unfit for Command.” He is also the author of several other books, including “America for Sale,” “The Late Great U.S.A.” and “Why Israel Can’t Wait.” In addition to serving as a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily, Corsi is a senior managing director in the financial-services group at Gilford Securities.
Disclosure: Gilford Securities, founded in 1979, is a full-service boutique investment firm headquartered in New York City providing an array of financial services to institutional and retail clients, from investment banking and equity research to retirement planning and wealth-management services. The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author are his alone and do not necessarily reflect Gilford Securities Incorporated’s views, opinions, positions or strategies. Gilford Securities Incorporated makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability or validity of any information expressed herein and will not be liable for any errors, omissions or delays in this information or any losses, injuries or damages arising from its display or use.
Mighty is Truth and it will prevail - Blog 
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but now used 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.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Massachusetts (the 13th largest population state, with 12 electoral college votes) and 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and 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.
The main problem with the current system is that it wasn’t designed for a political forum such as we have today.
Take Washington and Oregon State, where I reside for example.
You have King and Multnomah counties respectively that are predominately Liberal in nature. There are more people living in these counties than in the rest of the state. The majority of Washington and Oregon geographically have long been conservative in exit polls, but because they don’t have the population size behind them they are typically outnumbered by the larger counties. Many of the states that are conservative are much smaller in population than the liberal states. Even Alaska which is larger than Europe, has fewer people than states a quarter of its size geographically.
What is going on in America politically, socially, ethically, and of course morally today would be repugnant to the founding Father’s of our nation. If they had a clue how our political and socio-economic system would be corrupted by Fabian Socialists, the way it has been they would have added far more into the Constitution than they did I’m sure.
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, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. It would no longer matter who won a state. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or 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. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in 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): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, 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 — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district — a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
Yeah but the only problem is, there was never a change in any states electoral proceedures for Presidential Candidates that encompassed the requirement that a candidate must be a born US citizen to be able to run for President of the United States. A blind eye was simply turned from the facts in evidence and allowed corruption to take place.