• Green Party Peace Sign Bumper Sticker


    Green Party Peace Sign Bumper Sticker
    The Green Party has continually opposed entry into war and has consistently called for the immediate return of our troops, in stark contrast to the Democratic and Republican parties.
    Today we march, tomorrow we vote Green Party.

  • Occupy Wall Street: What Just Happened?

    Occupy Wall Street: What Just Happened? ebook cover

    |

    Occupy Wall Street: What Just Happened? eBook

    Occupy Wall Street: What Just Happened? eBook on Amazon

    Occupy Wall Street: What Just Happened? eBook

    Reflections on Occupy Wall Street, with photos, fun, and good wishes for the future. eBook, Occupy Wall Street: What Just Happened? (Only $.99 !) In the eBook, the Occupy movement is explored through original reporting, photographs, cartoons, poetry, essays, and reviews.The collection of essays and blog posts records the unfolding of Occupy into the culture from September 2011 to the present.  Authors Kimberly Wilder and Ian Wilder were early supporters of Occupy, using their internet platforms to communicate the changes being created by the American Autumn.

    The eBook is currently available on Amazon for Kindle;  Barnes & Noble Nook ; Smashwords independent eBook seller; and a Kobo for 99 cents and anyone can read it using their Kindle/Nook Reader, smart phone, or computer.

  • Vintage Jewelry


    Please visit our Etsy shop at: Wilderside Vintage and Antique Jewelry
    Eco-Fashion!
    Choosing vintage or antique jewelry to wear and/or gift, is a way to be gentle on the planet. Remembering the Waste Hierarchy Triangle, folks who love the planet should always try to…”Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”. Please share or donate your own jewelry and try buying vintage rather than new.

  • FaceBook

  • Instagram

    Instagram
  • tumblr

  • Pinterest

  • Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire: Ultimate Fan Guide on Smashwords

Oral arguments scheduled for: Democratizing the Electoral College Civil Action

Excerpts from the actual civil suit at the readmore…

Asa Gordon is Chair of the DC Statehood Green Party Electoral College Task Force and Executive Director of Douglass Institute for Government. Gordon’s civil suit concerning reform of the Electoral College will have oral arguments in the United States Court of Appeals on January 14, 2010.

The lawsuit, Gordon v. Biden,  pleas  for a  Declaratory Judgment by the U.S. court for  a proportional allocation of presidential electors in states where there is no “Winner-take-all”  rule in the laws of that state. (Ie: some states use a “Winner-take-all rule in giving out their electoral votes, when there is no law or reason for them to do so.) Gordon believes that the federal government should make the Declaratory Judgment in order to comply with the mal-apportionment penalty of the Constitution.
______________________________________

The full text below was sent out as an e-mail alert/press release by Asa Gordon:

By order of the United States Court of Appeals : Gordon (Plaintiff/Appellant) v Biden (Defendant/Appellee) is now SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON JANUARY 14th, 2010 before the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

FINAL BRIEF”S filed in Gordon v Biden (Green’s Democratizing the Electoral College Civil Action) . Reference the WEB site:

(1) FINAL BRIEF FOR APPELLEE (Filed Nov. 23rd, 2009, note: Same as BRIEF FOR APPELLEE filed Oct. 23rd, 2009).

(2) APPELLANT’S FINAL BRIEF (pdf file at
http://www.electors.us) filed Nov. 27th, 2009.
Gordon v. Biden pleas for a Declaratory Judgment by the U.S. court for a proportional allocation of presidential electors predicated on the popular vote split in unbounded states devoid of a “Winner-take-all” rule in the electoral code of a state to comply with the mal-apportionment penalty of the Constitutional Amend.14§2 as implemented by 2 U.S.C.§6.
“The true measure of a Democracy is not in counting how many votes are cast, but in how many of those votes that are cast truly count.” _ Gordon v. Biden .

Once again I defy anyone (attorney or not) to read Appellant’s Final Brief and not conclude that this case should be won on the “legal” merits for the plaintiff. Defendant relies on the Court not having the will to rule for a pro-se litigant over the Attorney General regardless of the merit of Plaintiff’s arguments. The Plaintiff is well aware that his exposure of the historical fraud by the Attorney General and the disturbing corrective historical context presented by the Plaintiff may prejudice the court from a professional ruling based on merit. If that should be the case, I apologize to my supporters. Let us hope the Appellant Court is more professional then an embarrassed legal community ( with a singular exception) in the consideration of this Civil Action to “Democratize the Electoral College”.
Subject Outline of APPELLANT’S FINAL BRIEF, with brief excerpts:

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT…………………………………………………………………… 1
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ………………………………………………………………………… 1
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS………………………………………………………………… 2
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS…………………………………………………………………… 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………. 4

The Plaintiff asserts that for the reasons set forth in the APPELLANT’S BRIEF and APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF, The Plaintiff has sufficiently established his case by legal precedents, and as a matter of law. Accordingly this Appellant court should rule in favor of the Plaintiff and vacate the ruling of the District Court. Furthermore this court should remand with a summary declaratory relief for proportional apportionment of Presidential electors for the unbounded states that are the subject of this civil action.

This APPELLANT’S FINAL BRIEF presents additional legal arguments; however, the arguments herein present the historical context for most of this case of controversy that should inform the Court in its resolution.
This final brief presents tables that demonstrate how the “winner take all” rule in the Unbounded Southern States dilutes the weight of the votes cast in a Presidential Election by race and/or party affiliation. The brief presents a historical context that explains how the legacy of the “Three Fifths Compromise” in the Constitution of 1787 that denied equal representation to African-Americans and distorted equal representation for Whites is preserved in our time by the “winner take all” rule for the allocation of electors in the Unbounded Southern States.
STANDING…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
ARGUMENT (intro)…………………………………………………………………………………………… 7

The Plaintiff asserts that the APPELLANT’S BRIEF and APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF have sufficiently established his case by legal precedents and as a matter of law. The Attorney General’s BRIEF FOR APPELLEE presents arguments that misconstrue the nature of this case of controversy, are unpersuasive and presents arguments that in fact support the plaintiff’s complaint. The Attorney General’s FINAL BRIEF FOR APPELLEE merely reiterates the arguments presented in the BRIEF FOR APPELLEE near verbatim, thus demonstrating that the Attorney General simply has no answer for the rebuttal arguments raised in the APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF. It appears at this point the Attorney General is just “mailing it in.” APPELLANT’S FINAL BRIEF presents arguments herein that provide a historical context for this civil action that should inform the Court in its resolution of this case.

The plaintiff asserts that his case is won at this stage on the legal merits alone. However, the Attorney General has introduced a historical context for the defense that is fraudulent and offensive to a just memory of the intent of the Reconstruction Era Constitutional framers of the Civil War Amendments. Those Amendments restored the Constitution to its Revolutionary mooring in the Declaration of Independence. The Attorney General cites Supreme Court precedents that ended Reconstruction and reestablished white supremacy. The plaintiff is compelled to respond to the revisionist “lost cause” historical arguments of the Attorney General in this Civil Action. After all, this Civil Action was filed on July 28th, 2008, to commemorate the century and two score years’ anniversary of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
I. THE “THREE FIFTH’S COMPROMISE” IN THE ELECTORS CLAUSE
DENIED EQUAL REPRESENTATION TO AFRICAN-AMERICANS
AND DISTORTED EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR WHITES. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ARGUES FOR THIS LEGACY TO CONTINUE
UNDER THE RULE OF “WINNER TAKE ALL”. ……………………………………………… 8
II. THE “WINNER TAKE ALL” RULE FOR APPORTIONMENT
UNDER THE ORIGINAL ELECTORS CLAUSE DENIES EQUAL
REPRESENTATION TO AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND DISTORTS
EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR WHITES.. …………………………………………………15
III. AS ALTERED BY THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS,
THE ELECTORS CLAUSE AFFIRMATIVELY ENCOURAGES
APPORTIONMENT OF ELECTORS NECESSARY TO AVOID A
DENIAL OR ABRIDGMENT IN THE CITIZEN ‘S “RIGHT TO VOTE”……………………..19
IV. PLAINTIFF HAS A RIGHT TO PROCEED AS PRIVATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL. …………………………………………………………………………..21

V. THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL
FRANCHISE FOUNDED ON RACIAL QUOTAS AND
RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS GROUNDED
IN THE INTENT OF THE DECLARATION SHOULD INFORM
THE COURT IN ITS RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE. ………………………………………..22

A. THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE INTENT FOR A FRANCHISE
BY RACIAL QUOTAS. …………………………………………………………………………. 23
B. A DIVINE REDEMPTION, THE RECONSTRUCTION
AMENDMENTS DECLARATION INTENT FOR
THE FRANCHISE. ………………………………………………………………………………….33
VI. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INVOKES THE REDEMPTIONIST
ERA VOTING RIGHTS PRECEDENTS THAT REESTABLISHED
RACIAL SUPREMACY AND ENDED RECONSTRUCTION. ………………………………39
VII. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDS THE DISCREDITED
THEORY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATS AND THE
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA. ……………………………………………………..45
VIII. QUOD LEGES POSTERIORES PRIORES CONTRARIAS ABROGANT.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..48

_______________________________

Asa Gordon,
Exe. Dir. Douglass Institute of Government
Chair, DC Statehood Green Party Electoral College Task Force.
Sec.Gen. Sons & Daughters United States Colored Troops

2 Responses

  1. 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.

    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 Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

    The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 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. This national result is similar to 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): 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%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  2. A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

    Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would perpetuate the inequality of votes among states due to each state’s bonus of two electoral votes. It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

    Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.