[Editor:  This response from Sen Barto is nearly word for word the same response that came to us from Sen. Sylvia Allen.  These foolish lawmakers are parroting Constantine Querard's talking points.  We forgive CQ - he's getting paid to represent the NPV movement.  But Senators are getting paid by taxpayer funds to represent THEM.  Everyone who opposes this effort to convert America into France or Italy - a democracy instead of the Republic that makes America exceptional - needs to call the Senators at azleg.gov  Tell the person who answers the phone NO on SB1218 and HB2456.  We have been told that CQ is getting his side to burn up their phones over and over calling and saying YES.]

   
 
Nancy BartoLori M Hack and 3 others posted in Arizona Republican LD 15.
 
   
Nancy Barto
February 8 at 10:05pm
 
National Popular Vote? I opposed the idea for years until I understood its potential to actually provide this country's voters a chance to be heard - and to win. 

The legislative proposal DOES change Arizona's current way of awarding our state's Presidential electors from Arizona's winner-take-all presidential electors being based upon Arizona's popular vote to awarding all 11 according to the national popular vote total. Example: if this compact were to be in place for the upcoming election this means if say Rubio wins the national popular vote, all the states who belong to the NPV Compact would award their electors to the Republican (Rubio) rather than to the Democrat. - even a state like California would deposit all 55 of their electors to Rubio even though Hillary probably would have won that state's popular vote. The reverse would also be true (Arizona's 11 would go to the Democrat if Hillary won even if our state voted Republican). 


The tradeoff is influence for identity. Right now, we’re a “red state” and proud of it. That said, our state and our issues get ignored and that is terrible for our state and our nation. None of us went to an Electoral College party to celebrate our electors voting for Romney because we were in mourning that day because Obama was elected President. So what real good does our red state “identity” do for us? We would be much better served as a state to have actual influence over the President and the Administration. And yes, this is how we can capture California’s 55 electoral votes... 


Here are the (true) major points in a nutshell: 


1. The bill makes no changes to the U.S. Constitution, the Arizona 

Constitution, or the Electoral College. NONE. 

2. It only changes the method by which Arizona’s electors are chosen, 

and that power was given to the State Legislature in Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. 

3. In fact, that power was considered a critical power by James Madison 

(see Federalist 45) to keep the states strong and the federal government weak. 

4. The current winner-take-all system of awarding electors results in 

more than 40 states, INCLUDING ARIZONA, being ignored in the general election. 

5. More importantly, because Arizona can be ignored in the election, it 

is also generally ignored when policies are crafted by the federal government. Presidents care how their policies will effect swing voters in swing states, NOT how their policies will effect voters or the country as a whole. 

6. By passing National Popular Vote, the Arizona Legislature will 

accomplish several things: First, it will make it so that a voter in Arizona is as important to candidates as a voter in Ohio, Virginia, or Florida is today. Second, because the change is a simple act of legislation, it is easily reversed should the Legislature ever decide it prefers a different method of choosing Arizona’s electors. Third, it will force candidates for President to change the way they campaign (nationally instead of just 7-10 states) and the way they govern (dealing with national issues and pursuing the best interests of the entire country instead of small swing groups). 


Here are two links to more information: National Popular Vote.com videos: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBwhJtk3xv0&list=PLGbqlTjpDNNb2... 

And the book with lots more information if you have the time to read it: 

http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ 


Some main opposition arguments: 


The main thing I keep hearing is we would gut the Electoral College. It doesn't. It merely changes the state's method of awarding their electors. 

That's a power the Founders gave the Legislature ON PURPOSE (Federalist #45). Massachusetts has used it to change its method either 11 or 13 times already. Joining the NPV compact would base our state's electors on the national popular vote rather than our state's winner take all, so that all of our votes count. Here are some other common misconceptions: 


1. By joining the NPV states are “effectively gutting the EC without 

the inconvenience of a Constitutional Amendment.” Nonsense. It represented a shift in how the majority of states wanted to award their electors, but changing how you award your electors in the best interests of your state is the very essence of the Electoral College. State Legislatures would never support a Constitutional Amendment because then they would be locked into the change with almost no way out. 


2. The "mob rule" objection is borne of a lack of understanding of pure 

democracy / direct democracy / mob rule versus a republican form of government. We retain our republican form of government: 


Every state has popular vote elections for their Governors, while still enjoying a republican form of government. James Madison defined the difference thusly ³in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.² A direct democracy, the tyranny of the majority, and all the other terms for it refer to a system where the people vote directly on the issues themselves. Imagine a world where there are no legislators or legislation, just a ballot each year with 1,000 questions on it. A republican form of government is where the people elect representatives to serve for fixed terms and to vote on these issues on their behalf. That is not changing. 


3. The Myth of the big cities is also wrong. You will hear this 

example used: "In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by a slim margin and Bush won the electoral vote by a slim margin. These are the actual numbers of votes cast for Bush and Gore vs today's electoral college vote. 5 biggest states cast a combined 33,592,283 votes and they had 171 electoral votes. 34 smallest states cast a combined 33,510,662 votes and they had 208 electoral votes. 34 to 5! This is exactly how the framers of the Constitution accommodated “fairness” so that the big cities don’t automatically have all the clout." Wrong. If the NPV had been in place that presidential year, the campaign would have been waged completely differently by both sides. The state of Florida probably would not have been 'ground zero' and the decider of the entire race. 


In addition, this concern about big cities is misplaced for two other 

reasons: 


In short, first, if you really think it is true, then take comfort from the fact that Arizona has 3 of the largest 38 cities in the country (Phoenix, Tucson, and Mesa). If candidates only paid attention to the big cities, Arizona would get a lot of attention and that¹s great for Arizona. Second, it actually isn¹t true because while the largest 50 cities in the country have only about 15% of the population, small-town America (towns/cities with populations of 50,000 or less) also have about 15% of the population. 

Candidates trying to win a national popular vote aren¹t going to be able to afford to skip 15% of the population period. Put another way, 85% of the voters live OUTSIDE of the 50 largest cities. 


Hope this helps.

Views: 600

Replies to This Discussion

I will check this out as I wrote Sue, who is my senator, and read her the riot act. Looks like if you are correct I owe her a big apology.  Thanks for the info.

Just consider what will happen the next time we have a close or contested election. You just THINK that Gore v Bush 2000 was a hanging chad nightmare... that was only a few select counties in just one state.

If these "compact" states want presidential candidates to pay them more attention, they should all just drop the "winner-take-all" method and go with proportional allocation so as not to be taken for granted.

Bingo

I looked at the map for the anticipated results of 2016 elections.  All of the 10 states that have approved the NVP are Democrat States or lean democrat......  thought the whole idea was for Repubs to win......

It's politico but it shows AZ as "likely Repub" not solid Repub.....  all we need is a few more Democrats and AZ will be one of those swing States Sen Barto thinks we should be.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/2016-predictions-117554

Since 1929, (CQ says to move the date back to 1928 and it changes but we are looking forward, not backward) more Democrats than Republicans have voted in Presidential elections.  Most of those years were well before we had so many illegal immigrants registered to vote.  The biggest 20 metropolitan areas in America will vote Democrat in large numbers and the race will be over... NY, LA, Chicago, Miami, Boston, Atlanta, Houston... you get the idea.  The big selling point CQ made to the Senators and Representatives - I say that with tongue in cheek because they are not representing US, they are representing CQ - are counting on this bringing all the presidential candidates to Phoenix!  They are willing to dissolve the sovereignty of America for a peek at some liberal candidate!!

So, since 1928 only ONE time more Repubs voted than Dems??  and that was 1928...  how stupid are these people????  

We assume that yours is a rhetorical question?  But, to be clear, there may have been a few years, very few like one, where the Republicans outvoted the Dems but in the aggregate, the Dems have it.  These people think that more republicans will vote but in fact, republicans in rural areas and "fly-over" county - the vulgarians - will never vote when they discover that the election is won with a disregard for their vote. The Electoral College takes into account smaller states and weights for fairness toward those states.  That will be lost.

I know from experience that WE ARE THE BOSS - but only when we are faithful in exercising our responsibility by engaging in the process on a consistent basis.  There is no other entity that has more clout than we do if we do our job. 

I quote Ronald Reagan:

I do not believe we are doomed to a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do.  I do believe we are doomed to a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.

As a general rule, our enemies prevail when we sit back and complain about their prevailing instead of defeating them.

Defeatism engenders defeatism. 

The overall small number of AzRA members turned six sponsors to vote against 2456.  If EVERY AzRA member across the state had been as engaged as Jim O'Connor and the other few, the result would have been even more dramatic.  Why was this run through in nearly record time?  Because more people were becoming interested.  Read the comments here.  Most of the commenters have come to the knowledge of this late. 

Until the conservatives are pro-active instead of reactive, we will continue to lose fights we should win.

If this were NOT TO change the  Constitutions of either the State or U.S., and the electoral college, THEN WHY DO IT Ms. Barto??  We are wise to the politics of deceptions.  Arizona would be ignored by joining a "compact" of other states, an act of diluting our individual sovereignty. This is the fallacy of a "democracy" where mob rule prevails, and those who have the politically correct influence ... rape us all. 

When was the last time California went Republican? And you think that with all the illegals ways Californians vote you will "capture California's 55 electoral votes"?? Those 55 votes ARE political power which will railroad Arizonians to being just an afterthought !!!  This "compact" destroys Federalism, and the 10th amendment to our U.S. Constitution.  It is just another grab of our sovereign power ... our independent vote ... by way of handing over our electoral power to the PC crowd of Californians. You mention "The tradeoff is influence for identity" ... is that critical thinking forward to the consequences of such a plan of evil by deception? It is the REMOVAL of our self-interest security found in our electors, and given to the pundits of crony capitalism. AND IT WON'T STOP with just this "compact" !! It is the incrementalism of power over the individual.

Be very much aware that LD15 is lining up real conservatives who will dispose of you AT ELECTION TIME !!!   

Good response.

For more information on opposing the National Popular Vote visit http://www.NoNationalPopularVote.wordpress.com

RSS

THOUGHTS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

POSTING POLICY:

NOTE:  Blog posts cannot be blasted to the membership.  Post in Opinions if you want your post to be blasted out.

Post on the correct tab that matches your topic.

Keep it brief and to the point.

Use the proper spelling and punctuation.

Please include the link to your source for the information you post.

Do not attack your fellow conservatives.

If you wouldn't say it to your mother, think twice before saying it here.

Follow these rules!

 

Suppose the earth and its inhabitants exist in order to identify just what causes mankind continually to suffer so many troublesome problems and afflictions.

GOD, PLEASE BLESS AMERICA!  AMERICA, PLEASE BLESS GOD.

 

© 2022   Created by Arizona Freedom Alliance.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service