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.
On June 7, 2011, the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47–13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21–11. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17–7.
Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: “I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives, it is good for California, and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.
National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . .Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it.”
http://tinyurl.com/3z5brge
Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), and former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.
Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.
http://tinyurl.com/46eo5ud
Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote “ include:
Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.
James Brulte is a Republican who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.
Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002
Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.
Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.
Fred Thompson is all in.
Fred Thompson was McCain’s stalking horse in the 2008 primary - he was in to split the conservative vote - took me in, too.
I don’t think much of him as a “Conservative.”
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, but under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree 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 in 2004, the highest levels of popular support , hardly overwhelming, 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. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
Dividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person’s vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws(whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
The Founding Fathers of our nation wisely established a Republic, not a Democracy, and there are many important differences. The differences can be debated and argued in many ways but the best and simplest definition I have found to date are the definitions printed in The Soldiers Training Manual issued by the United States War Department, November 30, 1928. These definitions were published by the authority of the United States Government and must be accepted as authentic in any court of proper jurisdiction. These precise and scholarly definitions of a Democracy and a Republic were carefully considered as a proper guide for U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Such definitions take precedence over any ‘definition’ that may be found in the present commercial dictionaries which have suffered periodical ‘modification’ to please ‘the powers in office’.
The definition for DEMOCRACY is found in TM2000-25: Section 118-120.
“Democracy, n.:- A government of the masses. - Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. - Results in mobocracy. - Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights. - Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice,and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. - Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, [chaos].”
Shortly after the ‘bank holiday’ in the 1930’s, hush-hush orders from the White House suddenly demanded that all copies of this book [Ed. Note: Training Manual 2000-25] be withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and the Army posts, to be suppressed and destroyed without explanation. Sadly, on the orders of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) administration, this outstanding Training Manual was “withdrawn” and destroyed. Question: Why did the FDR administration destroy this outstanding training manual?)
I’ll stay with the Electoral College as described in the Constitution and not try to out-guess our founders. Long live the Republic.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution— “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.”
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
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 method) 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, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (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 entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It 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 method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
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. Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
All should be aware that mvymvy is nothing but a semninar posting troll who has never commented on any other issue and his posts on this one are copy pasted comments that can be found all over the net.
In fact, if you do a search of some of his comments, you’ll find exact matches in various newspapers and forums all over the country.
Ellie Light reincarnate.
What does the U.S. Constitution say about the matter? Do you truly believe the Constitution is flawed/broken as regards this issue?
To date, I have yet to notice any individual or group who can rival the wisdom of the founding fathers. What I mean by that is (as the joke goes) “Intelligence” is knowing that tomatoes are fruit; “Wisdom” is knowing tomatoes do not belong in a fruit-salad.
Those who offer intellectual arguments to replace or significantly alter the electoral college are not (in my opinion) displaying much wisdom.
TAKE A WALK! Some ash hole faux beltway conservatives want to can the Electoral College and this means “conservatives” want this? PLEEEEEEEEEZE! This is another example “conservative leaders” thinking they are actual “leaders.” Bottom line this will go NOWHERE! It is not even worth talking about.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a “republican” form of government or is a “democracy.”
In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
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 has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
Senator Birch Bayh (D-Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, “one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes.”
Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election—and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?”
Good point.
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
A nationwide recount would not happen. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and recount. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years under the National Popular Vote approach. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets.
I’m glad he’s still here so he can be pointed out and studied. Kinda like a training dummy for bayonet drills.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since 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.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored —including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign,, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 56 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run, can be found by examining the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knows–namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states. It is certainly true that the biggest cities in those states typically vote Democratic. However, the suburbs, exurbs, small towns, and rural parts of the states often voted Republican. If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
Under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
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.