Marty Chavez Eric Griego

« End of the Road for "Sour Grapes" Lawsuit by Losing Legislators | Main | A Few Thoughts to Ponder as the Abyss Takes Shape »

Thursday, February 05, 2009

National Popular Vote Bill Passes NM House Committee

StewartLegisMeetup2CRHB 383, sponsored by Rep. Mimi Stewart, received a do pass today by a 4 to 2 vote on the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee. This bill guarantees the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

“New Mexico hopes to join a growing number of states including Illinois, Maryland, Hawaii, and New Jersey to ensure that every vote is equal,” said Stewart. “We deserve a fair system that guarantees one person, one vote.”

The National Popular Vote bill takes effect only when adopted in identical form by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect the President (at least 270 of 538). When the proposal is in effect, all the electoral votes from the enacting states are awarded as a bloc to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

HB 383 now moves to the House Voters and Elections Committee for a hearing to be scheduled within the next two weeks. Supporters are encoudrage to contact members of this committee, as well as their representatives, to urge passage.

For more info, see my post on this bill.

Technorati tags:

February 5, 2009 at 05:28 PM in Election Reform & Voting, NM Legislature 2009 | Permalink


And remember, when it gets to the HVEC, you can be there via Arnold-Jones' web-stream.

Posted by: Ellen Wedum | Feb 5, 2009 10:48:34 PM

There is a reason that we live in NM and not NYC, LA or Chicago. Those cities do not represent NM or us. Why would legislators, claiming to represent us, give away our representation and turn it over to cities to decide everything for us? The point is made here:

Posted by: rene | Feb 6, 2009 6:55:13 AM

We would never see another presidential candidate in New Mexico again. The votes simply are not there. This appears to be a reaction to George W. Bush taking the Electoral College vote in 2000. It could just as easily have happened the other way. My vote would count just as much as any other persons but I would never get to see the candidates. I disagree with it and will visit with my representative on this.

Posted by: Preciliano Martin | Feb 6, 2009 8:39:26 AM

NM has seen presidential candidates is because we were a swing state. Now we are an all Democratic (Blue state).

The law isn't about seeing or not seeing presidential candidates. It is aimed at making sure that the candidate supported by the most people wins. I guess that isn't important to the above commenters who seem very hung up on seeing candidates and shaking their hands. Are you children? Do you want to have presidents who don't win the majority of the votes?

Posted by: Pat | Feb 6, 2009 9:09:12 AM

In this day an age, it should be made illegal for a candidate to travel around the country at all. Campaigns should be launched electronically and through other media only. I don't think more than a photo of the candidate is necessary. This would force campaigns to be waged based on ideas, accomplishments, concepts, philosophy and record only. Let the candidate publish from a small office on a weekly or daily basis and base our votes on what they say and their record. These small office campaigns would be financed by the state and no political contributions would be allowed. Each state would winnow to a single candidate and then let them compete following the same rules on the federal dime.
No more moneyed interests dictating policy and no more shallow and intrusive media circus telling us what to think. No more Hitlerist type of charismatic rallies choosing our leaders by popularity over substance.
Then, one person-one vote would have meaning.
Otherwise, we could be turning power over to the mob.
I know, I know, I'm nutz.

Posted by: qofdisks | Feb 6, 2009 11:11:18 AM

The whole point of this bill is to eliminate the inequitable impact of the Electoral College without having to have a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate it completely. Smaller, more rural states already have inequitable power in Congress because representation in the Senate is not distributed by population. I support eliminiating the electoral college. Rep. Stewart's bill is most likely the easiest way to do so. I support it.

Posted by: Proud Democrat | Feb 6, 2009 12:54:07 PM

gofdisks-I'm with you 100%. Imagine what a different government we'd have if what you suggest were put in place. It wouldn't be much "fun" for the crooks and rich elites though. It would feel more like the revolution was being televised after all.

Posted by: Bonnie | Feb 6, 2009 2:25:02 PM

New Mexico would become a colony of some big metro area. We have more natural resources than they do and this would have the effect of them taking the resources without our input. I like the Electoral Collage system.

Posted by: Preciliano Martin | Feb 7, 2009 12:06:34 PM

Preciliano, could you explain how this would take place if the popular vote elected the president? I'm confused. You act like our members of congress would be eliminated. Would the president come down and take it in his hands or what?

Posted by: JJ | Feb 7, 2009 3:03:35 PM

Please post who the state Reps were that voted for the Bill so we can call THEM also. some of you with a Thank You some of us with a THANKS A LOT !! Ask our President what HE thinks . PLEASE! Mimi I used to think a lot of you . NOT so much anymore. We are a powerfull state today. Do this and we will just be a couple of minority Votes. Keep us posted Dates times hearings etc.

Posted by: Pro EC | Feb 9, 2009 12:04:26 AM