Comments for Clark County Republican Party http://clarkgop.org The official site of the Clark County, Nevada Republican Party Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:38:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Action Request: Oppose SB344 – National Popular Vote Bill by kohler http://clarkgop.org/index.php/2011/04/04/action-request-oppose-national-popular-vote-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-7 kohler Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:41:36 +0000 http://clarkgop.org/?p=2182#comment-7 <strong>ADMIN NOTE:</strong> The following is talking points from a representative near Palo Alto, CA. in favor of this bill and has posted the same comments nationwide. See this search: http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=is+no+massive+proliferation+of+third-party+candidates+and+candidates+do+not+win+with+small+percentages.+For+example,+in+905+elections+for+governor ============================== If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with 15% of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured apocalyptic outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. Under the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's electoral votes. Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement. Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote. – including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912, and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996). If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio. ADMIN NOTE: The following is talking points from a representative near Palo Alto, CA. in favor of this bill and has posted the same comments nationwide. See this search: http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=is+no+massive+proliferation+of+third-party+candidates+and+candidates+do+not+win+with+small+percentages.+For+example,+in+905+elections+for+governor
==============================
If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with 15% of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured apocalyptic outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections.

Under the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state’s electoral votes.

Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation’s 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote. – including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912, and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

]]> Comment on Action Request: Oppose SB344 – National Popular Vote Bill by kohler http://clarkgop.org/index.php/2011/04/04/action-request-oppose-national-popular-vote-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-6 kohler Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:39:23 +0000 http://clarkgop.org/?p=2182#comment-6 <strong>ADMIN NOTE:</strong> The following is talking points from a representative near Palo Alto, CA. in favor of this bill and has posted the same comments nationwide. See this search: http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=olitical+affiliation,+support+for+a+national+popular+vote+was+80%25+for+a+national+popular+vote+among+Democrats,+66%25+among+Republicans ===================== A survey of 800 Nevada voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 72% overall support for a national popular vote for President. By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 80% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 68% among Others. By age, support for a national popular vote was 75% among 18-29 year olds, 61% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 73% for those older than 65. By gender, support for a national popular vote was 80% among women and 63% among men. http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#NV_2008DEC Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly counted and mattered to their candidate. ADMIN NOTE: The following is talking points from a representative near Palo Alto, CA. in favor of this bill and has posted the same comments nationwide. See this search: http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=olitical+affiliation,+support+for+a+national+popular+vote+was+80%25+for+a+national+popular+vote+among+Democrats,+66%25+among+Republicans
=====================
A survey of 800 Nevada voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 72% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 80% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 68% among Others.

By age, support for a national popular vote was 75% among 18-29 year olds, 61% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 73% for those older than 65.

By gender, support for a national popular vote was 80% among women and 63% among men.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#NV_2008DEC

Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly counted and mattered to their candidate.

]]> Comment on CCRPress – March 6, 2011 by atomic bomb blast, discovery channel, nevada test site, nuclear bomb, los alamos, documentry, Plumbbob, Galileo, baddest, h bomb, Atomic, blast, Bomb, 1957 | atomicbombeffects.com http://clarkgop.org/index.php/2011/03/06/ccrpress-march-6-2011/comment-page-1/#comment-5 atomic bomb blast, discovery channel, nevada test site, nuclear bomb, los alamos, documentry, Plumbbob, Galileo, baddest, h bomb, Atomic, blast, Bomb, 1957 | atomicbombeffects.com Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:42:41 +0000 http://clarkgop.org/?p=2054#comment-5 [...] A portion of a Discovery Channel documentry about the biggest nuclear bomb ever made. The biggest baddest H bomb ever, Tsaar. Video Rating: 0 / 5 Further you can see this related post: http://clarkgop.org/?p=2054 [...] [...] A portion of a Discovery Channel documentry about the biggest nuclear bomb ever made. The biggest baddest H bomb ever, Tsaar. Video Rating: 0 / 5 Further you can see this related post: http://clarkgop.org/?p=2054 [...]

]]>