Serious Issues
I've posted a number of times on the so-called National Popular Vote Plan to try to bypass the constitution and the Electoral College it mandates. Obviously, I do not approve of the idea or the way it is trying an end-around on the Constitution of the United States. Supporters of a popular vote for the presidential election have tried - and failed - to do it the right way in the past. That is by trying to get an amendment to the Constitution through Congress. The wrong way, I think, is to try to forge a compact between the states in defiance of the prohibition on that that is in the Constitution. David Broder sees the problems in this approach as well.
The scheme, invented by John R. Koza, a Stanford professor, relies on the provision of the Constitution giving legislatures the power to "appoint" their presidential electors. If legislatures in enough states to make up a majority of the electoral college — 270 electoral votes — pledge to commit those votes to the candidate winning the national popular vote, no constitutional amendment is needed. Bayh and other high-minded individuals, such as former Illinois Republican representative John B. Anderson, a one-time independent presidential candidate, support the plan, arguing that it is a perfect expression of 21st-century democracy, while the electoral college is a relic of 18th-century thought.
All votes should count equally, no matter where they are cast, they say. Bayh told the Maryland legislators that Baltimore and Indianapolis voters are ignored by the presidential candidates because they live in states where one party dominates (Republicans in Indiana; Democrats in Maryland), while small-town voters in Ohio and Wisconsin are flooded with attention simply because their states are closely contested.
What is worse, they say, the electoral college made George W. Bush the winner in 2000 although Al Gore got half a million more votes, and such a result could happen again. Those arguments have persuaded a wide variety of others, including the New York Times editorial page and columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., to sign on to the plan.
The sincerity and stubborn persistence of Bayh and the others notwithstanding, this is a questionable proposition. No one knows what the abandonment of a federal principle — voting by state for the highest officer in the land — would mean for American politics and government.
I do not believe the measure will get past the Supreme Court, regardless of what its supporters say. But that is a separate issue. There are a lot more issues about this initiative that are not being fully explored, as Broder points out. The absolute nightmare of a national recount in a close election is one of them. So is the complete abandonment of the smaller states that will happen. Candidates will not campaign in all the states, as supporters say they will. They will only concentrate on the largest, vote-rich areas. The smaller states will become voiceless in the process.
By syn, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 10:18 am
National Popular Vote….another way of saying Banana Republic.
By Todd Nicholson, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 10:51 am
Sorry, you really don’t understand the Constitution’s provisions on the Electoral College. The current Electoral College system is not “more constitutional” than the National Popular Vote plan. Both are the product of statutory decisions by states, which are given plenary authority over how best to structure presidential elections.
The reason why an overwhelming percentage of Americans support a national popular vote over the current system is that it structures elections the way they are know well. Why would a system that we use for nearly every other election of note in the country have all these bizarre consequences? What did people know in the 1960s (when LBJ, George HW Bush, Gerry Ford, Bob Dole and Jimmy Carter all backed a nationanl popualr vote) that they don’t know now?
By Gaius, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 11:07 am
Sorry, I understand it a lot better than you care to admit:
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
SCOTUS will kill this even if it gets rammed through.
Do it the right way if it is such a great idea, by amendment, not like this.
By sami, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 11:57 am
Gaius - I substantially agree with you, both the principle of admending the Constitution as well as the relationship of federalism to the EC. However, your rationale behind the probability that SCOTUS will kill a multi-state compact doesn’t hold unless the states enter into the compact “without the consent of Congress”. Congress votes by simple majority - state legislatures accede. Fait accompli No? Am I missing something?
By Gaius, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 12:09 pm
That might be a possible outcome, but both houses would have to agree. But it also may be that going at it this way is already in violation since they did not have prior approval of Congress. The lawyers will have a ball with this one.
By T Ray, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 12:30 pm
THIS is the biggest threat to our Constitution you can find at this time? Habeus Corpus? Torture? Invasion of Privacy? Perpetual Incarceration? Looting of Taxpayers? None of these caught your attention like Popular vote versus Electoral College?
By Hugh Loebner, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 12:30 pm
“Compact with any other state?” Perhaps I’m just slow, but isn’t the Port of NY and NJ Authority the result of a compact between NY & NJ?
By Quilly Mammoth, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Sorry, Todd, but you couldn’t be more wrong. There were three methods discussed at the first Constitutional Convention:
Direct Election
Congressional election
State Legislature election.
National Direct Election was rejected first because it violated the balance of power that the small states insisted on (care to guess why each state has an equal number of Senators??. Congressional Election was not popular because of fear of corruption and the State Legislature Election faced that plus the sway that federal officials could tempt states with. (First anti-pork action)
A compromise was reached by basing the Electoral College on the Centurial Assembly. This gave each bloc of eligible voters a voice. While I’m sure that not many people today are educated enough to know what the Centurial Assembly was the Founders were.
Finally the 12th Amendment dictates the operation of the Electoral College and it would take an Amendment to the COnstitution to change it.
Todd, what are your guesses that states like Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Wyoming, the Dakotas and so on are going to approve such a system?
By yd, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 2:43 pm
it’s high time we elected the president by popular vote. as someone who lives in the northeast, i am sick of being held hostage (which is how i feel) by states with 1/3 the population. why should they have more say than me? that is what the electoral college amounts to. if the MAJORITY of people in this country vote for someone that result should not be overturned by the votes of a few specially privileged people.
as for the smaller states being left out, if EVERY vote matters then candidates would have to address EVERY voter. it would make the process more fair and balanced not less. i hope this works and the electoral college is done away with for good.
By Gaius, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 3:23 pm
So let’s just ask a question, shall we? Let’s say you vote with the majority in your particular state for one candidate. Under the national popular vote, however, your candidate loses. If the compact goes into effect, the majority vote in your state is negated and the election turned over to the other candidate.
Gee. That sounds fair. Fairly anti-democratic, that is. Be very very careful what you wish for.
By yd, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 3:30 pm
gaius,
it’s not about MY state’s vote. that’s the electoral college system. it’s about MY vote as an individual. why does it matter whether the person who won in my state wins, if the person who won the election wins? get it? it’s more fair because i can vote for whoever i want and not be concerned that people in my state think (and vote) otherwise.
all the electoral college does is give way too much power to the minority vote. it perverts the idea that every vote counts.
By Gaius, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Then do it the right way and get a constitutional amendment. If you can’t do that, then there is a real problem with the idea, wether you think it is fair or not. When something like this goes around the constitution, what is to stop them from doing the same thing to all the other measures of the constitution?
Again - be careful - you are playing with fire with this whether you see it or not.
By yd, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 3:43 pm
a constitutional amendment will never pass because large land states out west will never agree to cede power, which is really what we are discussing.
honestly, i believe the reason this is such a big deal is because people, like me, in highly populated areas are beginning to resent being told how to live our lives via rules/laws implemented by areas with less people. that’s really what i think is driving this. if conservatives (and i use this phrase as loosely and generally as possible because i think the issue is much larger than that) would just let the rest of us live, i don’t think you’d be seeing this. we are looking for a way to blunt their ability to govern those of us who do not live in their state/area. i don’t think that’s an unfair request.
as for circumventing the constitution, as a lawyer (newly minted) i have become a true cynic as to the true power of our constitution. in broad strokes it covers a lot but as they said the devil is in the details. for example, you have a problem with this. but i have a problem with a president who habitually makes recess appointments, circumventing the power of congress. i also have a problem with the politicizing of federal judges (both sides are too blame for this) which undercuts the constitution mandate that the senate “advise and consent” which for this adminstration means rubber stamp whatever i say. so, don’t preach to me about circumventing the constitution because gw does it everyday and i don’t hear any uproars.
By Gaius, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 4:10 pm
So tyranny is OK, so long as it is your tyranny.
What you see as the wrong of the less populous states having somewhat levelized power (it is not perfect, by any means) was put in the constitution for a reason - specifically to keep the more populous states from imposing their will on the rest of the people. You might feel completely different if you happen to find yourself living in one of the less populous states due to a job change in the future.
As for the off topic portion: You’re cheerfully neglecting the fact that the Democrats have repeatedly blocked the appointments Bush has tried to make - Clinton got almost all of his through without obstructionism from the Republicans.
By yd, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 5:06 pm
clinton did not get all his through. but that’s besides the point because i did say both sides were guilty of that. my point was recess appointments circumvents the constitution. so, to paraphrase you, circumventing the constitution is okay so long as you agree with the circumvention.
as for the electoral college, if gw had not won in 2000 via the supreme court, i don’t think this issue would matter so much. but he LOST the popular vote in 2000 and has been president for 8 years. that can’t happen again. if you can fix that within the electoral college system,t hen do so by all means. but less populous states do not deserve to have even say with more populous states. our system is based on one person, one vote. that vote doesn’t count within the current system.
off-topic: when i was in law school a professor encouraged me to research lanie grenier’s (sp?) proposal. i forget what she called exactly but the idea was to vote for our elected officials in much the same way minority shareholders vote in a corporation. we would be able to pool our votes and make them count for more. at the time, i agreed with everyone else that it was crazy. but if you really research the idea, it actually has some merit.
but it still comes back to one person one vote. if that is going to mean anything, then the person who wins the popular vote should win the election and the will of the people (all the people) should mean something.
another aside: i appreciate the intelligent exchange without all the hysteria and name-calling.
By Quilly Mammoth, Thursday, 5 April , 2007 @ 10:07 pm
YD,
Please read some basic history on the US and take some civic courses. The United States IS NOT a democracy. Never, ever has been.
It is a representative democracy. A Republic. A Republic where the rule of law out-weighs the passion of the democratic horde.
It’s why Senators are elected every six years and representatives are elected every two. It’s why there is a balance of power within the over all architecture of the Republic as well as in the House.
By Rightmom, Friday, 6 April , 2007 @ 7:59 am
The beauty is that Maryland Democrats would have had their electoral votes given to President Bush the last go round, oh the irony:-)
By yd, Friday, 6 April , 2007 @ 9:12 am
ok quilly mammoth,
i totally agree, but the balance is skewed at this point. when a minority can dictate to a majority, it is time to make adjustments. our country has grown since the constitutional convention and personally i think it is only natural that our government eveloves to reflect those changes.
and don’t talk down to me, i have two graduate degrees and probably know just as much or more than you on this subject. ask a question, don’t make an assumption like you know me.
By fred, Friday, 6 April , 2007 @ 10:23 pm
It’s time to do away with the electoral college. Because states with lower population trend GOP, awarding a number of delegates equal to the number of senators and representatives allotted to each state creates a serious imbalance.
A collection of 12 states that vote GOP with predictability have 55 electors, the same as California, but have an aggregate population of 15 million less than California. There are 663,000 voters per electoral vote in California compared to 397,000 votes per electoral votes in these twelve states. That a very significant disparity.
The 12 states are Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, N.D., S.D., Alaska, Utah, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Mississippi, Nebraska and Kentucky.
If the tables were turned, and voters in red states saw their votes counting for less than votes in blue states, conservatives would be calling for the abolition of the Electoral College.