Not exactly sure what this means...but... Iowa Senate Republicans sent out two releases on the idea to have us elect a new president based on the popular vote, instead of the electoral college (you remember what happened in 2000 when Gore received more votes than Bush). Republicans sent out the first release I've included last night; the one below it came out this morning. The only real change I can find is the first one is rather generic criticism of the Democrats who helped pass theplan out of committee. The second release picks a specific target: Democratic Senator Staci Appel of Ackworth.
Here's the first release:
Senate Democrats Pass “Iowa Voter Irrelevancy Act”
Out of State Government Committee
Senate Republicans instead focus on creating jobs and promoting Iowa’s economy and wonder why Senate Democrats are more focused on making Iowa’s voters irrelevant
DES MOINES, IA - A Senate Democrat proposal to strip Iowa of its influence in future presidential elections, dubbed the “Iowa Voter Irrelevancy Act”, passed out of the Senate State Government Committee today on an 8-7 vote with two Democrats joining unified Republican opposition to the bill. While Senate Republicans are busy trying to find way to save taxpayers money, keep taxes low, create good paying jobs and grow Iowa’s economy, this unpopular bill is being pushed through the legislative process. Should it gain enough votes in the Iowa House, the Iowa Senate and if it is signed by Governor Culver, Iowans right to have a say in who becomes the President of the United States will be dramatically diminished.
“As Iowans hear the details of this bill, I think they will end up coming to the capitol in outrage and demand answers. This is a terrible piece of legislation and Iowans must contact their legislators about this immediately to stop the Democrats from making Iowa voters irrelevant,” said Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley (R-Chariton). “Senate Republicans are focused on trying to grow Iowa’s economy, create and retain jobs and root out wasteful government spending but it appears that the Democratic agenda rests figuring out ways to cut Iowans out of presidential election process. You would think they already have enough on their plate considering their hundreds of millions in self inflicted budget deficits and their union boss anti-job agenda that will only raise taxes on Iowans already dealing with tough financial times.”
This bill would reverse traditions that date back centuries as our country’s founding fathers put the Electoral College in place to protect smaller states from having their say diminished by the larger, more heavily populated states. As it stands now, Iowa has seven electoral votes and those votes are awarded to whichever presidential candidate manages to win the most votes based on the results of Iowa’s 99 counties. However, this Democrat pushed bill will undermine that storied tradition with one fail swoop. This bill will force Iowa to give its seven electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of Iowa’s popular vote.
“Democrats must really want voters in urban centers like Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Miami or Boston having more say in the process than the voters in our communities all over the state,” said McKinley. “During last year’s election, groups like ACORN were out meddling with voter registrations and tampering with our elections. Do we really want to give them more opportunity to steal our legitimate right to determine who becomes our country’s president?”
If this bill were enacted, presidential candidates would have very limited motivation to come to Iowa to campaign for votes because Iowa is only about 1/100 of the country’s population. They would instead stick to campaigning in other states where the population is more dense and Iowans would be ignored and our issues would be swept aside. This is just another example of how our founding fathers were once again right on target in their desires to protect smaller states.
“I want to urge every Iowan to immediately contact their Senator about this bill and let them know that it is wrong for Senate Democrats to make Iowa’s voters irrelevant,” said McKinley. “Let them know that with 80,000 Iowans out of work, they should be focused on creating jobs and growing Iowa’s economy instead of limiting our influence in presidential elections.”
Committee Roll Call Vote:
Nay: Sen. Feenstra (R-Hull), Sen. Behn (R-Boone), Sen. Hartsuch (R-Bettendorf), Sen. Seymour (R-Woodbine), Sen. Wieck (R-Sioux City), Sen. Horn (D-Cedar Rapids), Sen. Black (D-Grinnell)
Yes: Sen. Appel (D-Ackworth), Sen. Kibbie (D-Emmetsburg), Sen. Sodders (D-State Center), Sen. Jochum (D-Dubuque), Sen. Hatch (D-Des Moines), Sen. Dearden (D-Des Moines), Sen. Danielson (D-Cedar Falls), Sen. Courtney (D-Burlington)
Here's the second release:
Out of State Government Committee
Senate Republicans instead focus on creating jobs and promoting Iowa’s economy and wonder why Senate Democrats are more focused on making Iowa’s voters irrelevant
DES MOINES, IA - A Senate Democrat proposal to strip Iowa of its influence in future presidential elections, dubbed the “Iowa Voter Irrelevancy Act”, passed out of the Senate State Government Committee today on an 8-7 vote with two Democrats joining unified Republican opposition to the bill. While Senate Republicans are busy trying to find way to save taxpayers money, keep taxes low, create good paying jobs and grow Iowa’s economy, this unpopular bill is being pushed through the legislative process. Should it gain enough votes in the Iowa House, the Iowa Senate and if it is signed by Governor Culver, Iowans right to have a say in who becomes the President of the United States will be dramatically diminished.
“As Iowans hear the details of this bill, I think they will end up coming to the capitol in outrage and demand answers. This is a terrible piece of legislation and Iowans must contact their legislators about this immediately to stop the Democrats from making Iowa voters irrelevant,” said Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley (R-Chariton). “Senate Republicans are focused on trying to grow Iowa’s economy, create and retain jobs and root out wasteful government spending but it appears that the Democratic agenda rests figuring out ways to cut Iowans out of presidential election process. You would think they already have enough on their plate considering their hundreds of millions in self inflicted budget deficits and their union boss anti-job agenda that will only raise taxes on Iowans already dealing with tough financial times.”
This bill would reverse traditions that date back centuries as our country’s founding fathers put the Electoral College in place to protect smaller states from having their say diminished by the larger, more heavily populated states. As it stands now, Iowa has seven electoral votes and those votes are awarded to whichever presidential candidate manages to win the most votes based on the results of Iowa’s 99 counties. However, this Democrat pushed bill will undermine that storied tradition with one fail swoop. This bill will force Iowa to give its seven electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of Iowa’s popular vote.
“Democrats must really want voters in urban centers like Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Miami or Boston having more say in the process than the voters in our communities all over the state,” said McKinley. “During last year’s election, groups like ACORN were out meddling with voter registrations and tampering with our elections. Do we really want to give them more opportunity to steal our legitimate right to determine who becomes our country’s president?”
If this bill were enacted, presidential candidates would have very limited motivation to come to Iowa to campaign for votes because Iowa is only about 1/100 of the country’s population. They would instead stick to campaigning in other states where the population is more dense and Iowans would be ignored and our issues would be swept aside. This is just another example of how our founding fathers were once again right on target in their desires to protect smaller states.
“I want to urge every Iowan to immediately contact their Senator about this bill and let them know that it is wrong for Senate Democrats to make Iowa’s voters irrelevant,” said McKinley. “Let them know that with 80,000 Iowans out of work, they should be focused on creating jobs and growing Iowa’s economy instead of limiting our influence in presidential elections.”
Committee Roll Call Vote:
Nay: Sen. Feenstra (R-Hull), Sen. Behn (R-Boone), Sen. Hartsuch (R-Bettendorf), Sen. Seymour (R-Woodbine), Sen. Wieck (R-Sioux City), Sen. Horn (D-Cedar Rapids), Sen. Black (D-Grinnell)
Yes: Sen. Appel (D-Ackworth), Sen. Kibbie (D-Emmetsburg), Sen. Sodders (D-State Center), Sen. Jochum (D-Dubuque), Sen. Hatch (D-Des Moines), Sen. Dearden (D-Des Moines), Sen. Danielson (D-Cedar Falls), Sen. Courtney (D-Burlington)
Here's the second release:
Sen. Appel Joins Other Senate Democrats to Pass “Iowa Voter Irrelevancy Act” Out of State Government Committee
Senate Republicans instead focus on creating jobs and promoting Iowa’s economy and wonder why
Sen. Appel is more interested in making Iowa’s voters irrelevant
DES MOINES, IA - A Senate Democrat proposal to strip Iowa of its influence in future presidential elections, dubbed the “Iowa Voter Irrelevancy Act”, passed out of the Senate State Government Committee yesterday on an 8-7 vote with two Democrats joining unified Republican opposition to the bill. Sen. Staci Appel (D-Ackworth) voted in favor of passage of the bill. While Senate Republicans are busy trying to find way to save taxpayers money, keep taxes low, create good paying jobs and grow Iowa’s economy, this unpopular bill is being pushed through the legislative process. Should it gain enough votes in the Iowa House, the Iowa Senate and if it is signed by Governor Culver, Iowans right to have a say in who becomes the President of the United States will be dramatically diminished.
“As Iowans hear the details of this bill, I think they will end up coming to the capitol in outrage and demand answers. This is a terrible piece of legislation and Iowans must contact their legislators about this immediately to stop the Democrats from making Iowa voters irrelevant,” said Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley (R-Chariton). “Senate Republicans are focused on trying to grow Iowa’s economy, create and retain jobs and root out wasteful government spending but it appears that the Democratic agenda rests figuring out ways to cut Iowans out of presidential election process. You would think Sen. Appel and the other Democrats already have enough on their plate considering their hundreds of millions in self inflicted budget deficits and their union boss anti-job agenda that will only raise taxes on Iowans already dealing with tough financial times.”
This bill would reverse traditions that date back centuries as our country’s founding fathers put the Electoral College in place to protect smaller states from having their say diminished by the larger, more heavily populated states. As it stands now, Iowa has seven electoral votes and those votes are awarded to whichever presidential candidate manages to win the most votes based on the results of Iowa’s 99 counties. However, this Democrat pushed bill will undermine that storied tradition with one fail swoop. This bill will force Iowa to give its seven electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of Iowa’s popular vote.
“Sen. Appel must really want voters in urban centers like Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Miami or Boston having more say in the process than the voters in our communities all over the state,” said McKinley. “During last year’s election, groups like ACORN were out meddling with voter registrations and tampering with our elections. Does Sen. Appel really want to give them more opportunity to steal our legitimate right to determine who becomes our country’s president?”
If this bill were enacted, presidential candidates would have very limited motivation to come to Iowa to campaign for votes because Iowa is only about 1/100 of the country’s population. They would instead stick to campaigning in other states where the population is more dense and Iowans would be ignored and our issues would be swept aside. This is just another example of how our founding fathers were once again right on target in their desires to protect smaller states.
“I want to urge every Iowan to immediately contact their Senator about this bill and let them know that it is wrong for Senate Democrats to make Iowa’s voters irrelevant,” said McKinley. “Let them know that with 80,000 Iowans out of work, they should be focused on creating jobs and growing Iowa’s economy instead of limiting our influence in presidential elections.”
Committee Roll Call Vote:
Nay: Sen. Feenstra (R-Hull), Sen. Behn (R-Boone), Sen. Hartsuch (R-Bettendorf), Sen. Seymour (R-Woodbine), Sen. Wieck (R-Sioux City), Sen. Horn (D-Cedar Rapids), Sen. Black (D-Grinnell)
Yes: Sen. Appel (D-Ackworth), Sen. Kibbie (D-Emmetsburg), Sen. Sodders (D-State Center), Sen. Jochum (D-Dubuque), Sen. Hatch (D-Des Moines), Sen. Dearden (D-Des Moines), Sen. Danielson (D-Cedar Falls), Sen. Courtney (D-Burlington)
Senate Republicans instead focus on creating jobs and promoting Iowa’s economy and wonder why
Sen. Appel is more interested in making Iowa’s voters irrelevant
DES MOINES, IA - A Senate Democrat proposal to strip Iowa of its influence in future presidential elections, dubbed the “Iowa Voter Irrelevancy Act”, passed out of the Senate State Government Committee yesterday on an 8-7 vote with two Democrats joining unified Republican opposition to the bill. Sen. Staci Appel (D-Ackworth) voted in favor of passage of the bill. While Senate Republicans are busy trying to find way to save taxpayers money, keep taxes low, create good paying jobs and grow Iowa’s economy, this unpopular bill is being pushed through the legislative process. Should it gain enough votes in the Iowa House, the Iowa Senate and if it is signed by Governor Culver, Iowans right to have a say in who becomes the President of the United States will be dramatically diminished.
“As Iowans hear the details of this bill, I think they will end up coming to the capitol in outrage and demand answers. This is a terrible piece of legislation and Iowans must contact their legislators about this immediately to stop the Democrats from making Iowa voters irrelevant,” said Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley (R-Chariton). “Senate Republicans are focused on trying to grow Iowa’s economy, create and retain jobs and root out wasteful government spending but it appears that the Democratic agenda rests figuring out ways to cut Iowans out of presidential election process. You would think Sen. Appel and the other Democrats already have enough on their plate considering their hundreds of millions in self inflicted budget deficits and their union boss anti-job agenda that will only raise taxes on Iowans already dealing with tough financial times.”
This bill would reverse traditions that date back centuries as our country’s founding fathers put the Electoral College in place to protect smaller states from having their say diminished by the larger, more heavily populated states. As it stands now, Iowa has seven electoral votes and those votes are awarded to whichever presidential candidate manages to win the most votes based on the results of Iowa’s 99 counties. However, this Democrat pushed bill will undermine that storied tradition with one fail swoop. This bill will force Iowa to give its seven electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of Iowa’s popular vote.
“Sen. Appel must really want voters in urban centers like Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Miami or Boston having more say in the process than the voters in our communities all over the state,” said McKinley. “During last year’s election, groups like ACORN were out meddling with voter registrations and tampering with our elections. Does Sen. Appel really want to give them more opportunity to steal our legitimate right to determine who becomes our country’s president?”
If this bill were enacted, presidential candidates would have very limited motivation to come to Iowa to campaign for votes because Iowa is only about 1/100 of the country’s population. They would instead stick to campaigning in other states where the population is more dense and Iowans would be ignored and our issues would be swept aside. This is just another example of how our founding fathers were once again right on target in their desires to protect smaller states.
“I want to urge every Iowan to immediately contact their Senator about this bill and let them know that it is wrong for Senate Democrats to make Iowa’s voters irrelevant,” said McKinley. “Let them know that with 80,000 Iowans out of work, they should be focused on creating jobs and growing Iowa’s economy instead of limiting our influence in presidential elections.”
Committee Roll Call Vote:
Nay: Sen. Feenstra (R-Hull), Sen. Behn (R-Boone), Sen. Hartsuch (R-Bettendorf), Sen. Seymour (R-Woodbine), Sen. Wieck (R-Sioux City), Sen. Horn (D-Cedar Rapids), Sen. Black (D-Grinnell)
Yes: Sen. Appel (D-Ackworth), Sen. Kibbie (D-Emmetsburg), Sen. Sodders (D-State Center), Sen. Jochum (D-Dubuque), Sen. Hatch (D-Des Moines), Sen. Dearden (D-Des Moines), Sen. Danielson (D-Cedar Falls), Sen. Courtney (D-Burlington)
Posts
1 comment:
75% OF IOWA VOTERS FAVOR A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT
A survey of 800 Iowa voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President. The question was "How do you think we should elect the President when we vote in the November general election: should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote for President was 82% among Democrats, 63% among Republicans, and 77% among others.
By age, support was 76% among 18-29 year olds, 65% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 82% among women and 67% among men.
By race, support was 75% among whites (representing 93% of respondents), 65% among African Americans (representing 2% of respondents), 86% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 58% among others (representing 4% of respondents).
The survey was conducted on February 17-18, 2009, by Public Policy Polling.
see www.NationalPopularVote.com
Post a Comment