Centerline: It's 2016 Already?


Its been another hectic week in Washington. Even with the continuing crisis in Ukraine, and all the news on the upcoming mid-term elections, it was still hard to miss the rampant speculation about the 2016 Presidential Election. This week Charlie discusses Jeb Bush, a small but significant reform clears another hurdle, and we continue to spread across the nation!

Charlie's Take On Jeb Bush: Among all the speculation about the 2016 Presidential Election, Jeb Bush has featured prominently. Recently, the perennial Republican favorite came out with some very interesting comments on immigration. In his U.S. News and World Report article, Charlie discusses how with these comments, Jeb Bush can "singlehandedly elevate the discourse in the 2016 race."

Electoral College Reform is a Real Thing: On Monday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation allowing New York to apply its 29 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The passage of this legislation makes New York the tenth state to sign on to the National Popular Vote compact. Though Electoral College Reform can seem like a farfetched goal, the passage of legislation in New York represents a significant step forward. Learn just how close we are here.

 

easelly_visual_(4).jpgThe Centrist Project is National!: In case you missed our Facebook post on Thursday, the Centrist Project now has a presence in 47 States, and we are pushing hard to hit all 50. If you haven't already, LIKE our Facebook page, and SHARE this post with your friends. Together we can turn the entire map purple!

 

You can sign up to receive CenterLine in your inbox every Friday here.

-- Andy

Do you like this post?

Showing 4 reactions


commented 2014-04-25 08:31:04 -0600 · Flag
No, I am not saying that the Centrist Project supports EC reform. I can only speak for myself and give the reasons for my opinion. That’s all I can do.
I guess you don’t see the reasons as persuasive, right?
commented 2014-04-24 07:52:27 -0600 · Flag
So, is the anonymous “guest4x” saying that The Centrist Project supports getting rid of the Electoral College because it is “common sense?” Really?
commented 2014-04-24 06:52:20 -0600 · Flag
If the electoral college was set up to protect minorities, it is fair to ask whether the original concern is still relevant from the viewpoint of about two centuries later. For urban voters, their votes carry less weight than rural voters, in part because of the electoral college. The same bias is true in the U.S. senate, where small population states like Wyoming have two senators, just like New York or California. The same bias appears in senate rules, where the minority can and routinely does block all sorts of legislation. The same bias appears in presidential primaries where early primary rural voters (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) have a far bigger impact on which presidential candidates that survive to the general election.
There are more than sufficient protections for minorities.
Given the circumstances, one can cogently argue that urban majority voters need protection from rural minorities. Imo, it would be a big improvement to get rid of the electoral college and, maybe even just for LOLs, giving large population states and extra U.S. senator or two. Getting rid of the electoral college isn’t liberal. It is common sense.
commented 2014-04-18 15:09:52 -0600 · Flag
Respectfully, the Centrist Project will lose my support if it gets behind the extremely liberal idea of abandoning the Electoral College in favor of the national Popular Vote. If Presidential elections are determined by the national popular vote, the agenda of very large urban centers will become the agenda for the country. While my personal politics tend to align with the political perspectives found in big cities, the Electoral College was created because the USA is not supposed to be a pure democracy. It is a Democratic Republic built to make sure that minority interests are fairly represented. The Electoral College is a pain in the ass for Presidential Campaigns because it forces candidates to deal with elections from the voting districts up instead of the national population down. That is a good thing. Do I personally wish that Iowa would be deemed irrelevant? Actually, yes, I do. Would I sacrifice an infrastructure that protects minority rights in order to make far right, rural populations irrelevant? No, never.