Every vote, everywhere, 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 over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 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. 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 — 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%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, 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, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

What do you know about the ratio of large population vs small population states in 1789? I’m thinking that there may not have been as many small pop. states in relation to larger pop ones as there are now, and that the obvious tyranny of the minority may not have seemed so threatening at that time.

Plus, the mere presence of the filibuster has an everpresent chilling effect on legislation. It discourages and stymies social movements by engendering an “oh, what’s the use?” attitude. Come on, has’nt this recent episode taught us that?

“If, say, the economy double dips in 2010 and the Republicans are able to pull off something analogous to 1994 in the Congress, liberals will thank god the 60 vote rule and the filibuster are there to stop the GOP from, say, privatizing social security or passing draconian anti-choice abortion legislation.”

No. It will rightly increase the stakes. Elections may actually have consequences. We no longer have the luxury of allowing this paralysis. The world is moving fast and so is the march to full corporatism (which is happening in large measure because of the filibuster.

Life without the filibuster holds unknown perils. Life with it has undeniable consequences, possibly fatal ones. Playing it safe is no longer an option. It is time to sail from these shores. They are no longer safe.

The United States has a total resident population of 308,202,000.[1] It is a very urbanized population, with 81% residing in cities and suburbs as of mid-2005 (the worldwide urban rate was 49%).[2] California and Texas are the most populous states,[3] as the mean center of United States population has consistently shifted westward and southward.

Because of the highly urbanized nature of the US, the 2 votes per state rule in the US Senate has become increasingly less democratic — and less representative of the US population as a whole, throughout the past century.

So I can’t think of a scenario that would meet your criteria, but your question lies at the heart of the cluster of issues that have culminated in radically anti-democratic political, economic (i.e., corporate structure legislation, and social shifts over the past 30+ years.

I realize that this is perhaps the only realistic thing that could change about American democracy right now, but it’s not the only arcane thing in our system. Why, for example, does the electoral college still exist? Why does the Senate exist? In the UK and Canada, the non-representative bi-camaral houses have been phased out. The Senate and House of Lords only have symbolic power.

Why keep the number of representatives fixed at 435? Article I of the constitution states, “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand.” Currently, we have one representative for every 700,000.

Why have single-member district representation at all? Why not assign representatives proportionally? If you get 15% of the vote, you get 15% representation. Isn’t that much more fair than the system we have (where if you get 43 and your opponent gets 48, you get squat)?

I realize that these are all radical questions, but the fact of the matter is that certain “facts” of American Democracy – the way that we elect the President, the size and structure of our legislatures, the fact that we have two parties rather than four or five – have a great deal to do with structural elements of our government that were authored hundreds of years ago. Do we need to change all of these radically? No. Should we? No.

But we also shouldn’t be let the fear of change keep us from considering things like eliminating the filibuster – an arcane, non-constitutional rule that is preventing our government from functioning in any meaningful way.

(Dreamlike harp music… segue to Firedoglake.blogspot.com…)

Countdown to Nukular

They want to install Bill Rehnquist’s successor with only 51 votes, and to be able to fill any additional Supreme Court vacancies the next three and a half years with only 50 votes plus Dick Cheney. That’s the whole ballgame for the GOP. How they get there, and what they trash in the process doesn’t matter.

Since Cornyn has stated it so clearly, this is exactly why the Democrats should refuse to give up the filibuster. There is no reason for Democrats to negotiate anything on this. Why? Because we are talking about nominees:

-to the highest court in the land;
-who get lifetime appointment;
-nominated without any attempt at bipartisanship;
-by a man with approval ratings well below 50%;
-who won office allegedly with only 51% of the vote;
-pushed by a party wholly-owned by religious fanatics.

And we are talking about the GOP changing the rules after they acquire all the levers of power.

Wha.. wha.. where am I? What’s going on?!

Roberts Post Mortem

I continue to believe that any justice Bush could plausibly nominate–which obviously includes Roberts–should be filibustered, simply because this would force the use of the nuclear option, which would destroy the filibuster in the long term, which would obviously be good for progressive politics on in the long-term. In addition, I would like to note that the next person who can offer evidence that being labeled “obstructionist” has any significant political effects will be the first. Yes, Virginia, Joe Klein and other Beltway hacks do not, in fact, reflect the concerns of ordinary voters.

Isn’t that interesting — someone calling out Herr Dick to pull the plug on the filibuster because it would help progressives in the future!

But first, a word from the past… Sam Alito is undergoing confirmation hearings against a backdrop of animated dissent by, ahem, the minority party.

The Goal of the Alito Hearings

I don’t care if a filibuster of Alito results in Republicans successfully triggering the nuclear option. Blocking an unacceptable nominee to the Supreme Court is the main reason why we need the filibuster for judicial nominees. If we can’t use it in order to save it, it is worthless. I also don’t fear any significant public backlash in the event of a Democratic-led filibuster, as enough of the country already opposes Alito’s confirmation to prevent any significant political repercussions for Democrats. If anything, I believe Republicans will have more severe political repercussions for using the nuclear option at the start of the legislative session just before the State of the Union address. Further, I always thought it would be fun to see the Democratic response to the destruction of the filibuster, which Harry Reid outlined back in April.

Chris Bowers explains…

However, if Frist goes ahead with the Nuclear Option, Senate Democrats would stop showing that deference, and use a Senate rule known as a “motion to proceed” that would require our agenda–health care, education, increased veterans benefits–to be debated on the floor of the Senate without the approval of the majority party. This would force Republicans to vote down health care, education, and other issues that are very popular with the public. In short, the end of judicial filibusters would also mean the end of deference to the agenda of the majority party.

So the ReButtlickins are already acting as if the filibuster is not available — even though the Dems didn’t call Cheney’s bluff back when they could have blamed the Repukes for killing an American tradition.

Crying over milk spilt and opportunities missed are we?