Posted on 06/24/2011 7:57:17 AM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
Attracting some of the hardest of hardcore politicos to a cold and rainy pavilion in South Saint Paul, the Republican Liberty Caucus hosted a town hall style forum Wednesday evening. The subject was a state-by-state initiative to establish a National Popular Vote for the office of President of the United States.
This is a controversial issue among conservatives and libertarians which I have come down on the unpopular side of. I haven’t wholly endorsed NPV. I have urged Tea Partiers to take an objective look at what it could do for Minnesota. However, before we can seriously analyze the idea, we have to understand what it is – and what it is not. We must disabuse ourselves of the notion that it is an attack upon our Founding Fathers, our Constitution, the Republic, and Mother’s apple pie.
Articulating that position at Wednesday’s forum was state Representative Glenn Gruenhagen. I took away three themes from his remarks. The first was that NPV is an attempt to undermine the Electoral College and transform the American republic into a pure democracy. The second, made in answer to the case for NPV by former state Representative Laura Brod, was that NPV sounds great “in theory” but is not based upon any “objective fact.” Finally, Gruenhagen referenced a rogues gallery of leftists who have promoted NPV, inferring that their support is reason enough to oppose it.
Brod competently answered each of these concerns. All three distract from the real issue, which is whether or not NPV is the best use of Minnesota’s constitutional power to assign its Electors as it sees fit.
Wherever NPV is discussed, the most prominent opposing argument is that it represents some sort of attack against our republican form of government. This is simply untrue. As Brod explained, the NPV state compact does not alter the Electoral College in any way. It is an application of the College according to the law of the participating states. Legally and philosophically, it proceeds from precisely the same power the current winner-takes-all rule does.
Furthermore, the distinguishing characteristic of a republic is not the absence of democratic process. The popular vote determines who we send to Congress, who we send to City Hall, who we send to the State Capitol, etc. Yet no one objects to these contests as exercises in pure democracy.
Setting that aside, the Right’s interest in NPV has (perhaps counter-intuitively) nothing to do with the actual vote. Affecting the way presidents are elected is a means to an end. The end is affecting the manner in which presidential candidates campaign, and in which presidents govern. As it stands, unless you live in a battleground state (which Minnesota is not), you are virtually ignored in presidential contests. It doesn’t matter how many or how few people live in your state, or where they live within the state. If it’s not purple, it’s a flyover. Establishing NPV would change that dynamic. Suddenly, every vote would count.
This is where many conservatives and libertarians say, “Ah ha! Democracy!” But again, the point is missed. We don’t want every vote to count for the mere sake of every vote counting. We want every vote to count so that presidential candidates will be forced to weigh every state instead of a few battlegrounds. It’s not about democracy. It’s an answer to a de facto oligarchy, where a few special interests in a few special states have disproportionate influence over presidential candidates.
To this, Gruenhagen admits NPV sounds like a good theoretical solution. However, he claims the theory is not backed by any objective fact. With all due respect, many claims from opponents seem far more theoretical than NPV does. Take, for instance, the claim that NPV would result in unprecedented nationwide recounts which could tie up courts in several states for months on end. There is frankly nothing to suggest this possibility. There is no national election infrastructure, and NPV does not (and constitutionally could not) create one. Elections would still be administered precisely the way they are today, according to state law, supervised by the various secretaries of state. Recounts would occur only according to the laws in each state, and affecting the vote tally within states. There is simply no affect a close national popular vote could or would have upon a state’s process for recount. In Minnesota for example, an automatic recount would require a close vote within the state, not nationally. This would be the case whether NPV is enacted or not. It’s the case now.
The final argument deployed against NPV is the most instructive. The movement to enact NPV started amongst the Left in response to the presidential contest of 2000. It was in retaliation for the victory of George W. Bush against Al Gore. Many among the Left swore they would never let such an outcome occur again. They proceeded from the conviction that the winner of the popular vote should be elected to office because they won the popular vote. As noted above, this is not the reason conservatives have signed on to NPV. Frankly, given the rarity with which a president has been elected counter to the popular vote, it’s a silly issue to get hung up on. But we happily let the Left hang themselves on it because there is significant reason to believe it will open up the presidential contest to a broader, more conservative electorate. Regardless, the notion that we ought to judge an idea by the quality of its supporters is a bold-faced fallacy. It’s called an ad hominem attack, and we really ought to leave those to the Left.
Believe it or not, none of the above is an argument for NPV. I am making the argument to have the argument. As it stands, I see many of my libertarian friends and Tea Party cohort dismissing NPV out of hand for reasons which don’t hold muster. In fact, NPV may be a bad idea for Minnesota. The one point Gruenhagen made which I flagged for follow-up was a finding by the CATO Institute that Minnesota’s influence over the presidential contest would decrease by 3% under NPV. I’m curious to learn how they quantified that with such precision. Regardless, it speaks to the real issue we should be debating. Is NPV good for our state? Is it the best way to utilize our Electors? Those are questions of merit. So are concerns about the affect of voter fraud in certain notorious states. But we can’t consider those arguments before getting past the misguided constitutional concern.
And the existing process for electing a president is a rational process that has been in place for over 200 years. I fail to see any drawbacks that would compel me to consider some new-fangled way of doing it.
Every vote does count. Each state lets its voter determine how the state will cast its delegates in the national election. The separate sovereign states are the foundation of our Republic but the liberals can’t handle that. They want totalitarian central control.
The 10th Amendment has been raped for so long, most people are currently clueless as to what Federalism is and how it was meant to work.
Beyond that, I don’t believe this article for one minute. It is the liberals who are demanding an end to the electoral college, not conservatives.
Here in Michigan, less than 10 of our 83 counties are at all reliable democrat leaning counties. I think things are going to change rapidly now that we have a new zero tolerance fraud fighting Secretary of state.
Redistricting is also helping us here in Michigan. Its sure got one of our biggest RINOs squealing right along with my marxist former congressman.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2739127/posts
A true conservative favors limiting the franchise to landowners and veterans.
Thanks, I just checked it out. What an insipid load of bloviation that FAQ page is! Dispute their numbers? Why should I? The numbers are correct, it's the philosophy that remains completely sophomoric. "Ohio has more people than a collection of small states, but their electoral representation isn't proportional!" Waah, waah, waah. The simple answer to the main complaint ("my vote doesn't 'count' because I live in Montana") is that if you want to be wined and dined by a politician, move to a freaking state that's competitive.
“This brings us back to the argument we should be having, which is whether the NPV compact has merit as policy.”
Why debate NPV?
This is a republic, not a democracy. Democratic, yes, but no democracy. The Constitution deliberately protected the interests of the smaller states. The NPV would swamp and swallow up the smaller states. Why not disband the Senate while we are at it?
“...not an argument. We don’t conserve institutions merely because they exist.”
Yes we do. It’s called the Constitution. An NPV will never reach ratification, and a defacto NPV movement will be overruled by the Supreme Court.
Assuming there is still a Constitution left....
Because you and anyone like you that went to a public school in the last 40 years are nothing short of communists!
When I went to school democracy was considered a swear word and the worst form of government that was ever thought of.
Ignorance!
What I mean is simply to allocate a state’s EV by Congressional district, then award the 2 Senate votes to the state as a whole.
Say in CA (using pre-2010 numbers), McCain would have won 23 of the 53 House districts, and of course Obama won the state overall. In that example, CA’s EV’s would be as such:
McCain 23
Obama 22
“Joking aside, as anyone else noticed the ramping up of talk from the left and the media (redundant, I know) about fundamental changes to the Constitution and other institutions such as the Electoral College? I know this talk has always been with us, but it feels to me like it has escalated significantly (in a coordinated way) over the last week..... “
Yes It has. There is something brewing. Especially remembering that Fareed is OBAMA’S ADVISOR.
These stories do not just occur by accident. This is nothing but a pre-invasion bombardment.
It is a huge leap forward for them. They just need to wait for a huge crisis ,,, such as a full collapse of the dollar. Another trigger might be a ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional. This plan is in the can,,, ready to launch
a new constitution.
I have NO clue. I can’t figure this one out.
I don’t know any Conservatives supporting “National Popular Vote.”
Almost by definition, if they ARE supporting it, they are not Conservative...
Because it is too easy to fool people these days. Republicans thought Trump was honest. Now they think Romeny and Perry are honest. It is too easy to fool people.
Under the current system, a President could be elected by a minority of the vote, but with a majority of the electoral votes. NPV would eliminate that, and in doing so, seriously undermine the concept of the confederation of states which, geographically and culturally, help make this country what it is.
Ultimately, NPV helps make majority tyranny easier, and as such all Americans should be opposed to it, on general principle.
How many of you would like to be ruled over by the liberal-soaked states such as New York, California, and Massachusetts? Under the NPV scenario, vast majorities in states like that could vote, say, 90%-10% for some "bocialist" candidate, while in the 45 or so remaining states, there could be a closer race, and yet, because of the lopsided majorities in the "liberal" states, the whole middle of the country would be ruled over by the "bocialists".
NO THANKS.
I agree. There is an initiative in California to do just that. If passed, I believe that we’d see at least 20 additional electoral votes for the Republican Candidates. Perhaps we would see more if the candidate fought for votes in OC, SD and inland parts of the state.
This could easily be the difference between a Republican in the White House and another four years of Obama.
All you need to know about this system is that California will decide every election.
The End.
(And I’m a Californian.)
A survey of 1,039 Wyoming voters conducted on January 4–5, 2011 showed 69% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked “How do you think we should elect the President: 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 was 66% among Republicans, 77% among Democrats, and 72% among others. By gender, support was 76% among women and 62% among men. By age, support was 70% among 18-29 year olds, 68% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for those older than 65.
I don’t see a poll for North Dakota, but here’s South Dakota.
A survey of 1,045 South Dakota voters conducted on January 28–30, 2011, showed 71% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Voters were asked:
“How do you think we should elect the President: 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 was 61% among Republicans, 82% among Democrats, and 77% among others. By gender, support was 83% among women and 59% among men. By age, support was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 67% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 77% for those older than 65. The survey was conducted by Public Policy Polling, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 1/2%.
In a second question in the 2011 poll, 78% of South Dakota voters said “yes” in response to the question:
“Do you think that South Dakota voters should be given the chance to vote on the question of whether the President should be elected by a national popular vote OR by the current Electoral College system?”
NationalPopularVote.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.