Posted on 01/12/2011 5:48:06 AM PST by Kaslin
Saul Anuzis wants to alter the way we elect presidents by supporting the Soros-financed National Popular Vote movement.
If nothing else, the 2010 elections were about a renaissance of the United States Constitution. The constitutional restraints on the power of government are en vogue. A resurgent GOP has claimed the document as a unifying rallying cry. This is why it is so curious that one of the leading candidates for Republican National Committee chair has fought for one of the most anti-constitutional ideas of the last half-century.
Saul Anuzis, former chair of the Michigan Republican Party, has aggressively championed the National Popular Vote movement. If you don’t know what that is, count your blessings. The National Popular Vote movement is a frontal assault on one of the most important parts of the Constitution — the method we use to elect the president.
The National Popular Vote movement would have states allocate their Electoral College votes to whichever candidate wins the nationwide popular vote. For example, South Carolina would have thrown their electoral votes in 2008 to Barack Obama even though McCain handily won the state.
It is a peculiar idea for a candidate for RNC chair to champion.
The plan relies on statutory changes in the states, not a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Naturally, there would never be sufficient support to amend the Constitution this way. States would never sign that suicide pact. Americans may be disturbed, however, to learn that 31 state legislative chambers have passed this purely partisan initiative. Notice the blue hue of the states which have done so.
The Electoral College is not some ancient relic whose time has passed. Instead, it is a way to preserve nationhood, to make elections matter in every corner of the union. Successful presidential candidates must appeal to a cross section of voters to obtain a majority of electoral votes. Obama appealed to more than New York, California, Massachusetts, and Vermont. He had to capture the formerly industrial Midwest and a southern state or two to win. The pattern repeats in other elections.
The National Popular Vote plan promoted by Saul Anuzis would trigger a massive power shift to urban areas. Why do a time consuming crisscross of the upper Midwest when you can buy the New York City and Philadelphia media markets and open the spigots with urban voters? Under Anuzis’ plan, there is no reason for a candidate to visit Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, or West Virginia. Just set up camp in Los Angeles or Chicago instead and wring out as many votes as possible in densely populated urban areas.
Urban voters also have the least political diversity of any voters. Contrary to what some believe, voters in places like Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle are actually the least tolerant of competition ideologically. They vote as a cohesive bloc, more so than suburbia or even rural areas.
In contrast, states like Kentucky, the Dakotas, West Virginia, and Nebraska have voters who vote for the person, not the party. Both Democrats and Republicans win there. But city voters pull straight Democrat tickets more often. Obama secured 75% of the New York City vote.
The cohesive voting pattern of urban voters of course explains why academia is so excited by the National Popular Vote movement. The small cabal of election law professors distinguish themselves primarily by conjuring new ways to federalize elections.
State control of elections helps preserve liberty by decentralizing control over elections. No single federal entity has the power to write rules, regulations and procedures for electing members of Congress and the president. Academia finds it inconvenient that the Constitution vests the power to run elections with the states. Like so many other bad ideas, this anti-constitutional popular vote scheme originated in academia.
The Founders feared national mob rule more than anything else, certainly more than poorly run state elections. They studied how earlier democracies such as Greece devolved into bankrupt majoritarian collapse. They viewed the federal government as deriving power from grants by the individual states, not majoritarian whim. The Electoral College ensures that our president represents many parts of America, not just an urban core.
If that isn’t enough to question Anuzis’ support for the National Popular Vote scheme, two words might convince you: George Soros. Soros and his son Johnny are bankrolling the national popular vote attack on the Constitution.
Did Anuzis accept Soros money when he lobbied for the plan across the country? Or does he just personally believe in it?
These are questions RNC members and Republicans should ask Anuzis this week. Why does he support this latest attack on the Electoral College and the core of our Constitution? Was he paid by Soros, directly or indirectly, or does he really believe in this bad idea? The GOP may lose its newfound brand as defenders of the Constitution if the answers come after Anuzis is elected RNC chair.
Fifth Column in the GOP.
Is the republican party insane?
How is this guy even a republican let alone in the running to head the party?
Is the party senile? Have they already forgotten November 2010?
Do they really think that the citizens that voted the demos and rinos out then will stand for this?
Wow! I had no idea he supported this. Which of the other candidates ought to be supported then?
Sarah Palin is who I would like to see as a canidate. She is the only who can bring the party back to a sane organization again to assure that we win. She IS the only one who can raise the funds to do so.
Things are just about at that point.
IMO, "REPUBLICAN" already IS a meaningless title.
"The U.S. Constitution gives the states exclusive and plenary control over the manner of awarding their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founders’ choice and was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789."
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.
Hit “post” too soon.
Now, if individual states decided to break down their electoral votes by Congressional districts with their remaining two votes going to the majority winner within the state, I have no problem with that. But to overrun the votes of the people of a state because of the votes in a more populous state just ain’t kosher.
I don’t think that the founders would have ever imagined a state giving up its power in the presidential elections, which this scheme would do.
Let’s not forget that the founders HATED democracies, and as we’ve seen, pretty much every democracy in history has devolved into an oppressive authoritarian or totalitarian government.
The first major assault on the republic was the 17th Amendment. Abandoning the Electoral College, whether through constitutional amendment or this end-around, will be the final nail in the coffin.
Mark
"During the 2008 Presidential campaign, John McCain determined that Michigan’s 17 Electoral votes were out of reach. Senator McCain’s staff announced to the world that campaign activities would cease in Michigan, so resources could be targeted to the battleground states of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Missouri. Candidate McCain abandoned conservatives in Michigan and made it difficult to win seats for U.S. Congress and the Michigan Legislature. With National Popular Vote, the McCain campaign would have fought for every Republican vote in Michigan right up until Election Day. Republicans—up and down our ticket—would have benefited from National Popular Vote in 2008, just as they would in 2012."
So we've got J. Christian Adams making this out to be an assault on non-urban voters, fly-over country, while Mr. Anuzis wants to empower those same voters with this concept.
National Popular Vote would extend the present state "winner take all" policy to a national level. His assumption that this would help elect local GOP candidates is a canard to cover for the GOP's own ineffectiveness in MI. If he really thinks that National Popular Vote will cause GOP Presidential candidates to NOT spend MORE time in populous states, he is a fool.
I know nothing about this guy. Hell, I'm not even a registered Republican. HOWEVER, I am against the National Popular Vote initiative and those who support it.
Not exactly true. The Constitution says (Article I, section 4, clause 1): "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators."
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. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in 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%.
Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.
By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:
Alaska (3)- 78% among (Democrats), 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
Arkansas (6)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 79% (Independents).
California (55)– 76% (D), 61% (R), and 74% (I)
Colorado (9)- 79% (D), 56% (R), and 70% (I).
Connecticut (7)- 80% (D), 67% (R), and 71% others
Delaware (3)- 79% (D), 69% (R), and 76% (I)
District of Columbia (3)- 80% (D), 48% (R), and 74% of (I)
Idaho(4) - 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Florida (29)- 88% (D), 68% (R), and 76% others
Iowa (6)- 82% (D), 63% (R), and 77% others
Kentucky (8)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 70% (I)
Maine (4) - 85% (D), 70% (R), and 73% others
Massachusetts (11)- 86% (D), 54% (R), and 68% others
Michigan (16)- 78% (D), 68% (R), and 73% (I)
Minnesota (10)- 84% (D), 69% (R), and 68% others
Mississippi (6)- 79% (D), 75% (R), and 75% Others
Nebraska (5)- 79% (D), 70% (R), and 75% Others
Nevada (5)- 80% (D), 66% (R), and 68% Others
New Hampshire (4)- 80% (D), 57% (R), and 69% (I)
New Mexico (5)- 84% (D), 64% (R), and 68% (I)
New York (29) - 86% (D), 66% (R), 78% Independence Party members, 50% Conservative Party members, 100% Working Families Party members, and 7% Others
North Carolina (15)- 75% liberal (D), 78% moderate (D), 76% conservative (D), 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), and 80% (I)
Ohio (18)- 81% (D), 65% (R), and 61% Others
Oklahoma (7)- 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Oregon (7)- 82% (D), 70% (R), and 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20)- 87% (D), 68% (R), and 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4)- 86% liberal (D), 85% moderate (D), 60% conservative (D), 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), and 78% (I),
South Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
Utah (6)- 82% (D), 66% (R), and 75% others
Vermont (3)- 86% (D); 61% (R), and 74% Others
Virginia (13)- 79% liberal (D), 86% moderate (D), 79% conservative (D), 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), and 54% conservative (R), and 79% Others
Washington (12)- 88% (D), 65% (R), and 73% others
West Virginia (5)- 87% (D), 75% (R), and 73% others
Wisconsin (10)- 81% (D), 63% (R), and 67% (I)
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php
Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.
The U.S. Constitution provides:
“No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state….”
Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has method, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can “not be read literally.” In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
“Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.
“The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.”
Specifically, the Court’s 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
“Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”
The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
“The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”
The National Popular Vote compact would not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is simply no federal power—much less federal supremacy—in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. 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). Then, 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 Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states after the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 30 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 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.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The winner-take-all method is not 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 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 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.
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 method 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.
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.