New US Political Group “No Labels” Holds First Meeting In New York

BloomberVia BBC:

A coalition of Democrats, Republicans and independents from around the US has created a new group in the hopes of reducing political partisanship.

About 1,000 people joined the group, called No Labels, in New York for its first meeting at Columbia University.

Independent New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia were among those who attended the event.

The group says it hopes to have an impact on the 2012 presidential vote.

The founders of the organisation claim No Labels is not a third political party but rather a home for those in the US who have felt homeless amid the recent growth of both liberal groups and the Tea Party movement.

[Continues at BBC News]

, , , , ,

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WOSPAQF5XFCTCWMMVEFGWUTVNM Joeschmoe

    As people become aware of the total corruption in both parties, and most of those claiming to be indy(hijacked by one side or the other) an attempt is being made to make elemnts of the establishment seem outside the box.

    They will fail.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WOSPAQF5XFCTCWMMVEFGWUTVNM Joeschmoe

    As people become aware of the total corruption in both parties, and most of those claiming to be indy(hijacked by one side or the other) an attempt is being made to make elemnts of the establishment seem outside the box.

    They will fail.

  • Andrew

    Only liberals don’t like labels.

  • Andrew

    Only liberals don’t like labels.

  • J Ackley

    No Labels is a label. Damn politicians and their mind games.

  • J Ackley

    No Labels is a label. Damn politicians and their mind games.

    • Laws456

      I was thinking the same exact thing.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Well, God bless them. Sounds nice on paper.

    But ‘non-partisanship’ usually boils down to traditional Dems just giving over whatever principles they may have started out with in order to avoid the strife necessary to acheive real progress. Obama’s recent whorish touting of his millionaire tax giveaway, after spending months telling us “I just don’t have the math to make those tax cuts work” is a prime example.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/39269110/Extending_All_Tax_Cuts_I_Don_t_Have_the_Math

    Yeah, yeah, I know–”Bit late to the party, aren’t you there, Liam?” Well, I wasn’t willing to throw in the towel on him until now. Obama did get a few things done; health care and financial reform, as incomplete as they are, were the biggest steps forward in literally decades. I had hope that if the Dems could hang tight, they might be able to squeeze out some more progress.

    But this was just the last straw for me. Utter, bald-faced bullshit. To you out there that had the same experiences months or years ago based on Afghanistan, ‘Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell’ and other civil rights, etc., etc., all I can say is you ended up calling that one correctly.

    I should have understood how those items reflected a lack of any deep moral commitments. I kept telling myself that he was just ‘playing the long game’. Well, if he’s playing a long game of any sort, it seems to be a game of “Bend Down and Touch Yer Ankles”.

    My current thinking is that what we need isn’t “Non-partisanship”–that’s just code for ‘surrender to corporate plutocracy’. Fuck no. What we need is MORE partisanship.

    I am somewhat encouraged by the recent actions by the likes of Peter De Fazio (D-OR)–that there seems to be a fellow worth watching, even if his near-term successes are more rhetorical than legislative.

    http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture-in-portland/unemployment-2010-extension-congressman-peter-defazio-on-opposing-tax-cut

    True leadership means being willing to take a hit on the chin every now and then for the team. Not some limp-dick cave-in for the sake of “Non-Partisanship”.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Well, God bless them. Sounds nice on paper.

    But ‘non-partisanship’ usually boils down to traditional Dems just giving over whatever principles they may have started out with in order to avoid the strife necessary to acheive real progress. Obama’s recent whorish touting of his millionaire tax giveaway, after spending months telling us “I just don’t have the math to make those tax cuts work” is a prime example.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/39269110/Extending_All_Tax_Cuts_I_Don_t_Have_the_Math

    Yeah, yeah, I know–”Bit late to the party, aren’t you there, Liam?” Well, I wasn’t willing to throw in the towel on him until now. Obama did get a few things done; health care and financial reform, as incomplete as they are, were the biggest steps forward in literally decades. I had hope that if the Dems could hang tight, they might be able to squeeze out some more progress.

    But this was just the last straw for me. Utter, bald-faced bullshit. To you out there that had the same experiences months or years ago based on Afghanistan, ‘Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell’ and other civil rights, etc., etc., all I can say is you ended up calling that one correctly.

    I should have understood how those items reflected a lack of any deep moral commitments. I kept telling myself that he was just ‘playing the long game’. Well, if he’s playing a long game of any sort, it seems to be a game of “Bend Down and Touch Yer Ankles”.

    My current thinking is that what we need isn’t “Non-partisanship”–that’s just code for ‘surrender to corporate plutocracy’. Fuck no. What we need is MORE partisanship.

    I am somewhat encouraged by the recent actions by the likes of Peter De Fazio (D-OR)–that there seems to be a fellow worth watching, even if his near-term successes are more rhetorical than legislative.

    http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture-in-portland/unemployment-2010-extension-congressman-peter-defazio-on-opposing-tax-cut

    True leadership means being willing to take a hit on the chin every now and then for the team. Not some limp-dick cave-in for the sake of “Non-Partisanship”.

  • Anonymous

    It’s not like you guys have a genuine leftwing major party anyway. You might as well make it official and undercut the power of inflammatory rhetoric.

    Centrist politics isn’t that all horrible as much as it grates this pinko leftie to admit it. You still see progression made on important issues, just at the rate of a stalagmite forming in a cave. It does seem to make for stable government however.

  • dumbsaint

    It’s not like you guys have a genuine leftwing major party anyway. You might as well make it official and undercut the power of inflammatory rhetoric.

    Centrist politics isn’t that all horrible as much as it grates this pinko leftie to admit it. You still see progression made on important issues, just at the rate of a stalagmite forming in a cave. It does seem to make for stable government however.

    • Liam_McGonagle

      Trouble is, a necessary precondition for successful centrist parties is a population that isn’t fcuking insane or dumber than a bag of door knobs. I think the U.S. may not meet that criterion.

      I get the impression that the U.S. and Australia have a lot in common, culturally. In some respects more so than we do with Canada–though maybe we just tend to highlight trivial differences because our proximity isn’t always so comfy.

      I do have to get to Australia one of these days to see for myself just what the situation is. My current impression is that, yes, Aussie’s are nuts–but they typically have the self-awareness to realize that, and have the sense of humor to take the edge off of it. Would to God that we in the U.S. did.

      • dumbsaint

        Well, yous certainly have the self-depreciation thing worked out. Also, from some of my fellow Australian’s embarrassing behavior towards Oprah’s current tour, we seem to share the same royalty too. (She did reciprocate by giving each audience member a pearl necklace but that’s a story for another time)

        I’ve known quite a few Americans who have lived or moved down here and they love it, It’s ‘like home but more relaxed’. I’m on the other side of the fence thinking about all the art, obscure bands, architecture and other greener side things I’m missing out on tucked away down here.

      • Brentskinner5

        I can assure you, Liam, that the supposed insanity and stupidity of the American population is greatly exaggerated. Just because they don’t vote for what you believe in doesn’t mean they’re stupid.

        • JP

          You have a point – insanity and stupidy is growing exponentially around the world, it is hardly an American issue alone. Unless we consider the mass export of American “culture”, in which case, it’s all your fault! It’s all your fault! :)

  • Anonymous

    Trouble is, a necessary precondition for successful centrist parties is a population that isn’t fcuking insane or dumber than a bag of door knobs. I think the U.S. may not meet that criterion.

    I get the impression that the U.S. and Australia have a lot in common, culturally. In some respects more so than we do with Canada–though maybe we just tend to highlight trivial differences because our proximity isn’t always so comfy.

    I do have to get to Australia one of these days to see for myself just what the situation is. My current impression is that, yes, Aussie’s are nuts–but they typically have the self-awareness to realize that, and have the sense of humor to take the edge off of it. Would to God that we in the U.S. did.

  • radiac

    Who needs labels when you’ve got more money than God?

  • radiac

    Who needs labels when you’ve got more money than God?

    • Laws456

      For real, none of those people are speaking to the issues that effect the masses. No talk of jobs, other than just the word, no talk of justice, no talk of legalization of bud, no talk of reigning in the military. I understand this is their first meeting but most of these people have been involved in politics and govt for decades. So now we’re supposed to to look to these same people who supported many of the policies of the past that got us into this mess for leadership?? I’m good, I’ll pass.

    • Calypso_1

      yeah – sounds like single party corporate rule

  • Anonymous

    For real, none of those people are speaking to the issues that effect the masses. No talk of jobs, other than just the word, no talk of justice, no talk of legalization of bud, no talk of reigning in the military. I understand this is their first meeting but most of these people have been involved in politics and govt for decades. So now we’re supposed to to look to these same people who supported many of the policies of the past that got us into this mess for leadership?? I’m good, I’ll pass.

  • Anonymous

    I was thinking the same exact thing.

  • Haystack

    Sounds like a gimmick to get people of different political stripes to rally around something that stands for nothing.

  • Anonymous

    …those in the US who have felt homeless…
    Poor Michael Bloomberg is homeless. I guess we should feel sorry for him.

    I’d be more interested in a non-partisan alliance involving the likes of Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich to end the disaster that is US foreign policy.

  • Haystack

    Sounds like a gimmick to get people of different political stripes to rally around something that stands for nothing.

    • Hadrian999

      whenever i hear about things like this it seems more like an attempt to quarantine party dissidents into a useless group instead of having them calling for change in the party or working with a 3rd party.

      • Haystack

        I wish we’d adopt a system of proportional representation, so it would actually make sense to vote for third parties.

        I even like the British system of having Parliament choose the head of state–that way you never get gridlock.

  • Tchoutoye

    …those in the US who have felt homeless…
    Poor Michael Bloomberg is homeless. I guess we should feel sorry for him.

    I’d be more interested in a non-partisan alliance involving the likes of Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich to end the disaster that is US foreign policy.

  • Anonymous

    Well, yous certainly have the self-depreciation thing worked out. Also, from some of my fellow Australian’s embarrassing behavior towards Oprah’s current tour, we seem to share the same royalty too. (She did reciprocate by giving each audience member a pearl necklace but that’s a story for another time)

    I’ve known quite a few Americans who have lived or moved down here and they love it, It’s ‘like home but more relaxed’. I’m on the other side of the fence thinking about all the art, obscure bands, architecture and other greener side things I’m missing out on tucked away down here.

  • 5by5

    Sorry. I’m with Bill Maher on this. We need MORE partisanship, not less.

    One reason why we have problems now is because the Republicans have moved somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, and rather than resisting that, Democrats have ALSO moved to the right in some misguided attempt to “appear” centrist.

    So now there is NOBODY representing the real center (expect maybe Bernie Sanders), which at this point actually stands to the left of the Democratic Party.

  • 5by5

    Sorry. I’m with Bill Maher on this. We need MORE partisanship, not less.

    One reason why we have problems now is because the Republicans have moved somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, and rather than resisting that, Democrats have ALSO moved to the right in some misguided attempt to “appear” centrist.

    So now there is NOBODY representing the real center (expect maybe Bernie Sanders), which at this point actually stands to the left of the Democratic Party.

  • NaturalSelection

    What would happen if everyone of legal age HAD to vote? Make it mandatory…declare Voting Day to be a national holiday so everyone gets the day off…and then fine the hell out of anyone who does not vote (repeat offenders lose their citizenship or something equally motivating…) Then, get rid of the electoral college since every vote will count. I suspect we would no longer be limited to a two-party system. There could be eleven parties or twenty-three…anyone who had a new/different/radical idea could potentially create a new party and see how many votes they could get. Wouldn’t this encourage people to become more involved in the process of not only voting but also of coming up with new ideas/solutions for many of the problems currently facing all of us?

    Also, Arthur C. Clarke had an interesting idea in his novel, Imperial Earth: anyone who wants to run for public office should be automatically barred from doing so because they obviously have some sort of agenda which they are trying to push. Instead, a computer randomly selects a social security number and whoever gets picked has to serve in office for…I think it was two years? It has a been a while since I read it, but the general idea struck me as quite interesting and thought-provoking. Again, I suspect in such a world, that people would want to get involved and become more knowledgeable about a host of different issues because one day it might fall to them to help make some of the Big Decisions.

    Who knows? Both of these ideas might prove to be disastrous. But something has to give as our current system has all but failed us: Democrats and Republicans are both equally worthless, two sides of the same bent and broken coin. It is time to change currency or – in my ideal world – eliminate currency altogether. But one step at a time, I suppose…

  • NaturalSelection

    What would happen if everyone of legal age HAD to vote? Make it mandatory…declare Voting Day to be a national holiday so everyone gets the day off…and then fine the hell out of anyone who does not vote (repeat offenders lose their citizenship or something equally motivating…) Then, get rid of the electoral college since every vote will count. I suspect we would no longer be limited to a two-party system. There could be eleven parties or twenty-three…anyone who had a new/different/radical idea could potentially create a new party and see how many votes they could get. Wouldn’t this encourage people to become more involved in the process of not only voting but also of coming up with new ideas/solutions for many of the problems currently facing all of us?

    Also, Arthur C. Clarke had an interesting idea in his novel, Imperial Earth: anyone who wants to run for public office should be automatically barred from doing so because they obviously have some sort of agenda which they are trying to push. Instead, a computer randomly selects a social security number and whoever gets picked has to serve in office for…I think it was two years? It has a been a while since I read it, but the general idea struck me as quite interesting and thought-provoking. Again, I suspect in such a world, that people would want to get involved and become more knowledgeable about a host of different issues because one day it might fall to them to help make some of the Big Decisions.

    Who knows? Both of these ideas might prove to be disastrous. But something has to give as our current system has all but failed us: Democrats and Republicans are both equally worthless, two sides of the same bent and broken coin. It is time to change currency or – in my ideal world – eliminate currency altogether. But one step at a time, I suppose…

    • Liam_McGonagle

      My guess is that if voting were mandatory, everyone would be running on “Repeal Mandatory Voting Law” platforms.

      • Haystack

        Or perennial write-in candidate Mickey Mouse would finally win an election.

    • mvy

      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. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

      In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. 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. Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

      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 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. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

      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 National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

      See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

    • mvy

      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.

  • calyx

    yeah – sounds like single party corporate rule

  • Liam_McGonagle

    My guess is that if voting were mandatory, everyone would be running on “Repeal Mandatory Voting Law” platforms.

  • Brentskinner5

    Look, I happen to be a conservative. But whether you’re an intellectually curious liberal or conservative, this ew group’s ethos cannot possibly resonate with your belief system.

    The only folks I know who say, “I don’t understand why they won’t just compromise and get something done,” are the ones who don’t pay attention. They’re uninvolved, and they don’t want to be involved.

    The notion that anyone who cares about politics is just a cantankerous meanie comprises the entirety of their attitude, an attitude that will never change, precisely because they’re intellectually shallow.

    Please excuse the hyperbole, but these are the people who care more about Paris Hilton’s love life. These are the folks who get their news from “Entertainment Tonight” and who know as much about politics as the latest “Dancing With The Stars” *scandal* teaches them.

    These folks are the reason we’re going to hell in a hand basket, and the reason the electorate swings so wildly at the slightest hint of fabricated problems courtesy of the MSM.

    The No Labels Party is asinine, brain candy at its most deleterious.

  • Brentskinner5

    Look, I happen to be a conservative. But whether you’re an intellectually curious liberal or conservative, this ew group’s ethos cannot possibly resonate with your belief system.

    The only folks I know who say, “I don’t understand why they won’t just compromise and get something done,” are the ones who don’t pay attention. They’re uninvolved, and they don’t want to be involved.

    The notion that anyone who cares about politics is just a cantankerous meanie comprises the entirety of their attitude, an attitude that will never change, precisely because they’re intellectually shallow.

    Please excuse the hyperbole, but these are the people who care more about Paris Hilton’s love life. These are the folks who get their news from “Entertainment Tonight” and who know as much about politics as the latest “Dancing With The Stars” *scandal* teaches them.

    These folks are the reason we’re going to hell in a hand basket, and the reason the electorate swings so wildly at the slightest hint of fabricated problems courtesy of the MSM.

    The No Labels Party is asinine, brain candy at its most deleterious.

  • Brentskinner5

    I can assure you, Liam, that the supposed insanity and stupidity of the American population is greatly exaggerated. Just because they don’t vote for what you believe in doesn’t mean they’re stupid.

  • Brentskinner5

    A rallying cry for dumbasses, this new No Label movement is.

  • Brentskinner5

    A rallying cry for dumbasses, this new No Label movement is.

  • mvy

    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. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

    In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. 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. Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    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 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. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    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 National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  • mvy

    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.

  • JP

    You have a point – insanity and stupidy is growing exponentially around the world, it is hardly an American issue alone. Unless we consider the mass export of American “culture”, in which case, it’s all your fault! It’s all your fault! :)

  • Hadrian999

    whenever i hear about things like this it seems more like an attempt to quarantine party dissidents into a useless group instead of having them calling for change in the party or working with a 3rd party.

  • Haystack

    Or perennial write-in candidate Mickey Mouse would finally win an election.

  • Haystack

    I wish we’d adopt a system of proportional representation, so it would actually make sense to vote for third parties.

    I even like the British system of having Parliament choose the head of state–that way you never get gridlock.

  • Jdhghfgjk

    ====== http://www.tnta.us/ ====

    Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30

    AF tank Hoody $36

    Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $33

    Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $12

    Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

    Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $12

    New era cap $9

    Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $16

    accept paypal and or credit card free shipping

    ====== http://www.tnta.us/ ====

    ====== http://www.tnta.us/ ====

    ====== http://www.tnta.us/ ====

    ====== http://www.tnta.us/ ====

    ====== http://www.tnta.us/ ====

    ====== http://www.tnta.us/ ====

    ====== http://www.tnta.us/ ====

    ====== http://www.tnta.us/ ====