Thursday
Feb182010
Will They Take Away Your Vote?
Thursday, February 18, 2010 at 10:01PM
Another fast-track bill, this one to effectively abolish the Electoral College, was introduced Monday in the WI assembly. Please consider writing, calling, or emailing your representatives today asking them to oppose this bill! AB751 would enter Wisconsin into an agreement with other states to elect the president of the United States by a national popular vote, instead of the current system of electors. This means that the people of Wisconsin could vote for one candidate and if the other candidate won the popular vote, Wisconsin's electors would automatically go to the winner of the popular vote despite the wishes of Wisconsin voters.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB751hst.html
This proposal came forward with bipartisan support, although we here at the FVI believe that it is likely unconstitutional and seeks to subvert the electoral process without an honest and open debate on the issue.
Here are the named sponsors and cosponsors of this bill: Introduced by Representatives Roys, Kaufert, Berceau, Black, Newcomer, Clark, Dexter, Fields, Grigsby, Pocan, Sinicki, Toles, A. Williams, Zepnick and A. Ott; cosponsored by Senators Risser and Wirch.
Representative Newcomer has since withdrawn his support for the bill and in a conversation with the Fox Valley Initiative today, Representative Kaufert and Representative Ott both said they were withdrawing their support as well. Both Kaufert and Ott said that after learning more about the bill and its possible ramifications, they could no longer support it moving forward.
The Electoral College as constituted today is not above criticism. But whatever its flaws, to subvert it is far worse. The most dangerous concerns about this bill are philosophic:
1) It would even further cement the dangerous notion in the minds of the American people that the president more fully embodies the "national will" than any other elected official. It is this mindset that was explicitly cited by Hitler, Mussilini, Castro, and other tyrants of the last century in order to justify their unilateral exercise of power. Will Grigg wrote an excellent article about the Electoral College back in 2000 for The New American which elaborated on this point.
This attitude strongly contrasts with the description of the presidency as given in Article II of the Constitution. As Tom Eddlem recently wrote, "Constitutionally speaking, the president was designed by the founders to be nothing more than the errand-boy of Congress."
2) Also, this bill would further erode (if that is even possible!) the original federal character of the republic. If the Electoral College is "anti-democratic", than the Senate is more so. Should we completely reconfigure the Senate and apportion the Senators among the states based on population too? There is no good reason not to once you submit to the notion that direct democracy is the highest political good.
(Of course the nature of the Senate was badly disfigured by the 17th amendment, which transformed the office of Senator from that of representing the interests of his state within the federal union, to simply another direct representative of the people.)
Ideologically, this bill is an assault on the constitutional principle of state sovereignty; where the states retain all powers not delegated to the federal government via the Constitution and are thus a sovereign, mediating institution between the citizen and fedgov. Not that states behave that way today. We obviously have a lot of work to do. The recent surge in activity concerning 10 amendment resolutions and nullification of unconstitutional federal law is a very encouraging trend in restoring this original intent. But to further institutionalize the national democratic character of the presidency will only hasten the destruction of what is left of our late, lamented federal republic.
(Thanks to David Stertz of the FVI for his work on this article)
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB751hst.html
This proposal came forward with bipartisan support, although we here at the FVI believe that it is likely unconstitutional and seeks to subvert the electoral process without an honest and open debate on the issue.
Here are the named sponsors and cosponsors of this bill: Introduced by Representatives Roys, Kaufert, Berceau, Black, Newcomer, Clark, Dexter, Fields, Grigsby, Pocan, Sinicki, Toles, A. Williams, Zepnick and A. Ott; cosponsored by Senators Risser and Wirch.
Representative Newcomer has since withdrawn his support for the bill and in a conversation with the Fox Valley Initiative today, Representative Kaufert and Representative Ott both said they were withdrawing their support as well. Both Kaufert and Ott said that after learning more about the bill and its possible ramifications, they could no longer support it moving forward.
The Electoral College as constituted today is not above criticism. But whatever its flaws, to subvert it is far worse. The most dangerous concerns about this bill are philosophic:
1) It would even further cement the dangerous notion in the minds of the American people that the president more fully embodies the "national will" than any other elected official. It is this mindset that was explicitly cited by Hitler, Mussilini, Castro, and other tyrants of the last century in order to justify their unilateral exercise of power. Will Grigg wrote an excellent article about the Electoral College back in 2000 for The New American which elaborated on this point.
This attitude strongly contrasts with the description of the presidency as given in Article II of the Constitution. As Tom Eddlem recently wrote, "Constitutionally speaking, the president was designed by the founders to be nothing more than the errand-boy of Congress."
2) Also, this bill would further erode (if that is even possible!) the original federal character of the republic. If the Electoral College is "anti-democratic", than the Senate is more so. Should we completely reconfigure the Senate and apportion the Senators among the states based on population too? There is no good reason not to once you submit to the notion that direct democracy is the highest political good.
(Of course the nature of the Senate was badly disfigured by the 17th amendment, which transformed the office of Senator from that of representing the interests of his state within the federal union, to simply another direct representative of the people.)
Ideologically, this bill is an assault on the constitutional principle of state sovereignty; where the states retain all powers not delegated to the federal government via the Constitution and are thus a sovereign, mediating institution between the citizen and fedgov. Not that states behave that way today. We obviously have a lot of work to do. The recent surge in activity concerning 10 amendment resolutions and nullification of unconstitutional federal law is a very encouraging trend in restoring this original intent. But to further institutionalize the national democratic character of the presidency will only hasten the destruction of what is left of our late, lamented federal republic.
(Thanks to David Stertz of the FVI for his work on this article)
Reader Comments (17)
A survey of 800 Wisconsin state voters conducted on December 12-14, 2008 showed 71% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 81% among Democrats, 67% among independents, and 63% among Republicans.
By age, support was 68% among 18-29 year olds, 62% among 30-45 year olds, 72% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 80% among women and 61% among men.
By race, support was 72% among whites (representing 89% of respondents), 64% among African-Americans (representing 5% of respondents), and 58% among Others (representing 5% of respondents).
see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#WI_2008DEC
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states. Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
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. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
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 1,707 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): 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%. Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed.
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
The Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district -- a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.
National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences. This bill does not eliminate the electoral college, it does not force electors to vote for a candidate they don't want, it does not take away anyone's vote, it does not disenfranchise voters, it does not cancel votes, it does not negate votes, nor does it ignore votes. It adds up votes of all voters and the candidate with the most popular votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
While it may not eliminate the electoral college, it does indeed subvert the process and make the electoral college all but obsolete. It takes the popular vote of each individual state and puts those votes into jeopardy. There are merits to discussing the idea, but to do an end around the electoral college without an amendment to it on a national basis is troublesome.
Again,
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district -- a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
I would argue that even with the national popular vote, candidates would ignore smaller states as all they would need to do is to work on the populations of the larger states to ensure they counteract any votes from the smaller states. The electoral votes based on congressional district is an interesting idea and one that I would be interested in investigating. I would like to not be dictated by Madison and Milwaukee as to how our state electoral votes are cast. But I still think a general national popular vote is not a good idea (unless we could make sure voter ID laws are included to prevent fraud.
My main issue was the the bill was announced on Monday with a hearing on Wednesday and from what I could tell absolutely NO PRESS COVERAGE of it at all. I didn't hear it on the news, in the Post-Crescent, etc. That is only one of my main issues with what happened with this bill.
There have been a number of National Popular vote debates that came up after the 2000 election and although it does happen occasionally, I still think it is VERY difficult for a candidate to win a popular vote and still lose the electoral college. It doesn't seem like a good campaign strategy to me.
A candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. A smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 30%) that now get overwhelming attention , while two-thirds of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
Wisconsin is not a small state. It is the 20th largest state.
The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically "radioactive" in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current presidential election system.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by eight state legislative chambers in the 13 smallest states, including one house in Delaware and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
Most of the medium-small states (with five or six electoral votes) are similarly non-competitive in presidential elections (and therefore similarly disadvantaged). In fact, of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with three, four, five, or six electoral votes), only New Hampshire (with four electoral votes), New Mexico (five electoral votes), and Nevada (five electoral votes) have been battleground states in recent elections.
Because so few of the 22 small and medium-small states are closely divided battleground states in presidential elections, the current system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states. The New York Times reported early in 2008 (May 11, 2008) that both major political parties were already in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008 (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes). In other words, three-quarters of the states were ignored under the current system in the 2008 election. Michigan (17 electoral votes), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Florida (27) contain over half of the electoral votes that mattered in 2008 (85 of the 166 electoral votes). There were only three battleground states among the 22 small and medium-small states (i.e., New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada). These three states contain only 14 of the 166 electoral votes. Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
The potential for political fraud and mischief is not uniquely associated with either the current system or a national popular vote. In fact, the current system magnifies the incentive for fraud and mischief in closely divided battleground states because all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. Not that I'm saying there was fraud or mischief in 2000, but it took as little as 537 votes in Florida to win the state and the presidency.
I have thought about the electoral college system of electing the President and I think it is flawed in some respects, but not all. I do NOT want to see an election based on purely popular vote, but I do think it is time to consider amending the electoral college system. I think that the most fair way to handle the Presidential election is to have 435 electors, each elector representing a Congressional District. The elector would have to vote for the candidate gaining the most votes in his or her district. In this way large states like California who have some very Democratic districts and some very Republican districts would allocate a proportionate share of votes by district rather than statewide. The biggest drawback I see with this formula is the effect of gerrymandering that occurs in states as parties seek to draw district boundaries most favorable to the party. There would have to be some way to prevent obvious manipulation of boundaries in order to make the process fair. But I think overall, this suggestion would make for a much more realistic election result that is most representative of the voters in the country.
[...] “Will They Take Away Your Vote?” [...]
The idea behind the Electorial College is to prevent Los Angeles, New York City, Houston and Chicago from electing our president. And that is exactly what would happen if we do away with the Electorial College. Anybody trying to tamper with the Constitution or voting laws shpould be viewed as very suspicious. Except for outlawing Electronic Voting Machines.