By
Joe Alicata
A few weeks ago a gentlemen strolled into my office at the
New York State Legislature, carrying what I thought was typical lobbying
information; “we would like money for this…” or, “your member should support
that….” This gentleman, however, was different. This gentleman had in his
possession information opposing the movement to elect the President by a
national popular vote.
Naturally this sparked my interest and he and I engaged in a
spirited debate about the tenants of democracy and the issues with the
proposal. After he departed my office I was left with only one feeling: he
cannot be serious. So I inquired for more information from his group on the subject,
and the memorandum he supplied me with is the subject of the following piece.
According to the Federal Elections Commission, in 2008
roughly 57% of the citizens of the United States turned out to vote in
the Presidential election[i],
which for a country which prides itself on being a beacon of is not exactly an
impressive statistic. Even more damning; a report published by the
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the year 2000
showed that the United States ranked 132 out of 172 countries in voter turnout,
with an average of 48.3 percent of eligible voters casting ballots in elections
between 1945 and 2000.[ii]
Now if those statistics don’t highlight voter engagement and
participation I don’t know what does.
The memorandum distributed by this gentleman’s from the
Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) is so incredibly flawed I am amazed it
made it through the editing process and was actually distributed.
Firstly, the position advocated by the CCP headlines its argument
with the following:
“The
National Popular Vote Plan would jettison a nearly 220 year old system for
electing our nations President. In doing so, it would reject one of the many
carefully-crafted checks on majority rule designed by the Founding Fathers to
safeguard minority rights.”[iii]
After finishing chewing on whatever you had to to finally
finish reading that, further analysis highlights a serious ideological flaw in
this position. Firstly, defending a 220 year old system that is cloaked in
antiquity and mired in controversy by saying it defends the minority is
laughable. I cannot for the life of me wrap my head around how a system that
awards electoral votes to a candidate based on which party’s candidate wins in
that state defends the minority.
If the democrats control the legislative majority in a state
such as New York (as they do), then by nature the majority is in control; which
under the principles of majority rule, democracy and utilitarianism is fair,
although it sucks to be in the minority. Thusly when it comes time to elect the
President, there will more likely than not be a democratic majority, thereby
awarding the electoral votes from the state of New York to the democratic
candidate, effectively nullifying the votes of those New Yorkers who voted for
non-establishment candidates or for the republican candidate. Granted there
exists the possibility of the minority candidate winning, but the amount of
time, money, and resources it would take to reverse the voting trend in a state
such as New York
is simply not feasible under the current electoral system.
Another point brought up in this memorandum is that the
Electoral College system creates an environment in which
“…candidates must be able to appeal
to multiple constituencies, building broad coalitions based on policies that
address the needs and interests of Americans across the country. The plan would
eliminate the need for candidates to build these coalitions in support of their
candidacies, allowing them instead to focus on issues that appeal to and
motivate their partisan base. The requirement that candidates appeal to voters
across the country and not just a handful of populous areas is an important
check on the power of a narrowly-focused majority to trample the rights of the minority.
The NPV scheme would eliminate this important check.”[iv]
The “check” that is addressed above has already been
eliminated. Candidates already spend their time appealing to their bases first,
energizing them so they have a system of support to fall back on when they
inevitably make a mistake. Candidates, under the current system do not address
the needs of citizens across the country. They address the needs of citizens in
swing states such as Ohio and Florida, largely
ignoring states in which their party has the majority, as victory is all but
assured there.
Why would Mitt Romney spend his time and money running
campaign commercials in New York or California? Surely you
will see the die hard Romney supporters with their bumper stickers and their
lawn signs, but New York
will certainly receive no where near as much attention as states where the
voting base can swing either way. And that, effectively, disenfranchises the
“casual” voter, who if their vote actually counted in a state in which their
party allegiance is in the minority, would go out and vote. But under the
current system, why would they even bother? If you want to talk about
protecting the minority: let their voice be heard. Let their vote be counted,
and applied to their candidate, so that they can actually make a difference.
Under the current system, the popular vote is nothing more
than a cute statistic for cable news companies to make up stupid graphics and
screen effects for. If you want fairness and equality, and you want to protect
the rights of the minority, abolish the Electoral College.
As it stands the National Popular Vote (NPV) proposal is
open to all fifty states and the District
of Columbia. It provides that each member shall
conduct a statewide popular vote for the election of the President, and appoint
a chief election official to oversee the vote counting. This all seems
perfectly logical, although the current NPV proposal also has its weaknesses;
namely that it establishes a “compact” between member states that they may withdraw
from at any time, as long as it is not six months or less before an election,
is subject to abolishment in the case of the abolishment of the electoral
college,.
You simply cannot do that. If we are going to make wholesale
changes to our electoral system; it needs to be like the Mafia: once you’re in,
you’re in. By establishing that member states must continue to be member
states, and there is no “eject” button, we can effectively establish a fair and
equitable system for electing the president that actually defends the rights of
the minority within their locality, and brings voice to the disenfranchised
American voter.
I want to make it clear before I continue, that I am not
advocating for the National Popular Vote legislation as it stands now; rather I
am defending and advocating for the popular vote as a concept and practice that
should be explored and implemented through proper legal channels to reconnect
the American people to their government, put pressure on the media to be
accountable and honest by pushing more people to pay attention because they can
in fact make a difference.
The memorandum from the CCP continues on to highlight
“Concerns over ballot fraud, controversial election management practices and
different recount processes would also create the potential for chaos and
conflict.”[v]
That my friends; sounds an awful lot like our current
system. Need I remind you that this is a system which allowed George W. Bush to
win the presidency although he lost the popular vote; subsequently engulfing
the country in two wars, allowing for the wholesale deregulation of the
financial sector and markets, the deregulation of the housing market, and
ultimately gutting the American dream in the name of big business.
Two hundred and twenty years ago: there was no housing
market to collapse, there was no “big oil”, there was no “Al-Qaeda”, there were
no planes to be hijacked, no computers, no cell phones, no television,
internet, cars, trains, nuclear weapons, global warming, fossil fuels,
education crises, gaping tax loopholes, egregious tax evasion aided by offshore
banking, wire transfers of untold sums of money, drones that kill people from
miles above with the push of a button, madmen who are working to obtain the
means to wipe entire countries out with the push of a button, student loan
debt, massive social programs that have been raided for corporate stability,
urban sprawl, widespread pollution of the air, water, and earth, massive
workforces in need of affordable transport, millions upon millions of people in
the United States that need food, healthcare and shelter; as you can see, only
a few things have changed since the adoption of the electoral college. It is
time for the Electoral College to change as well.
Chaos and conflict are naive worries that can be rectified
with intelligent and thought out policy making. Bringing representatives from
each state (Governors or election officials would suffice) together in Washington to hash out a
plan to make sure the people of their respective states have a voice in the
presidential election is not something that is beyond us. We are the country
that beat back the British and won our independence, stormed the beaches at
Normandy and pushed back the Nazi’s, put a man on the moon, and crumbled the
Iron Curtain: and you are going to tell me that we cannot figure out a new way
to count our votes? I know we as a country seem far gone at times, but I think
we can still do basic math, or at least develop a computer to do it for us.
To completely shut out and dismiss the prospect of a
national popular vote is purely un-American. As the gentleman who came into my
office continually reminded me: “We do not live in a pure democracy, and I do
not believe in one.” And that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. What is also
true is that continuing to operate under an antiquated, inefficient, unfair and
lazy system of vote counting pushes us further towards mindless obedience. We
will become a nation of Pavlovian drones, mindlessly tolerating the power of
he/she who yells the loudest and has the most money.
We cannot let that happen.
[i] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
[ii] http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$509
[iii] CCP
Memo page 1
[iv] CCP
Memo Page 1
[v] CCP memo
page 3
Joe Alicata will be a senior at the University at Albany this fall, where
he is studying public policy, philosophy and political science. Currently he is
the opinions editor for the Albany Student Press, and will next year serve as
the Editor in Chief. Additionally, Joe is the director of news for WCDB 90.9
FM, and host of “The Lowdown”. His interests include politics, philosophy,
cooking, cars, weight lifting, and the occasional sunlit walk on the beach.
The presidential election system 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.
ReplyDeleteStates have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. 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. 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.
States are free to replace their winner-take-all statutes with a different system at any time. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Massachusetts has changed its method of awarding its electoral votes on 11 different occasions. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method.
The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors.
Interstate compacts existed under the Articles of Confederation. The U.S. Constitution explicitly continued compacts that were in existence when the Constitution came into force.
Interstate compacts are legally enforceable against the states because the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides:
“No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”
An interstate compact is a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.
An interstate compact is a contract.
Like most interstate compacts, the National Popular Vote compact permits states to withdraw from the compact (by passing a repeal statute).
Withdrawal from any contract may only be made in accordance with the contract’s own terms.
Congress and the courts can compel compliance with the terms of interstate compacts. That’s why compacts are considered the most effective means of ensuring interstate cooperation.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states, like New York, that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the primaries.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
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). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
A survey of New York voters showed 79% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
ReplyDeleteBy gender, support was 89% among women and 69% among men.
By age, support was 60% among 18-29 year olds, 74% among 30-45 year olds, 85% among 46-65 year olds, and 82% for those older than 65.
Support was 86% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, 78% among Independence Party members (representing 8% of respondents), 50% among Conservative Party members (representing 3% of respondents), 100% among Working Families Party members (representing 2% of respondents), and 7% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).
On June 7, 2011, the New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47–13 margin. The bill also passed the New York Senate in 2010. The bill has 80 sponsors in the New York Assembly.
NationalPopularVote
Joe, You show some wisdom in NOT endorsing the National Popular Vote scheme! There are dozens of major problems that it creates and it solves exactly NONE of the invented "problems" that it is advertised to solve.
ReplyDeleteThe NPV scheme compels each Compact state to go to the expense of conducting a statewide popular election for President and THEN forces the state legislature - a few days AFTER THE ELECTION - to reverse, eliminate and over-throw the results of that popular election every time that the State Popular Vote disagrees with the national popular vote!
As a federation, the President of the Untied States has never been elected by the national population and has never been intended to be. The President is elected by the STATES not the population.
To suggest that the Founders were somehow stumped on how best to elect the President or could not agree is part of the deception that NPV sales people are putting out there. Consider what Alexander hamilton published to the voters of New York about that very subject AT THE TIME IT WAS ADOPTED as part of the US Constitution:
"THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent." - Alexander Hamilton, March 12, 1788
Joe, based on what you have written, you may be falling for the deception that the current presidential election is just ONE election, ONE system. It is not.
It is a series of 50 State elections where the STATES are deciding which candidate the State will vote for. The President is the President of the Federation of STATES - he/she is elected by the members of the federation, the 50 States, and NOT by the population. We are the United STATES of America, not the United Population of America.
The NPV also makes a massive change in that the Electoral College system requires the President to be elected by a MAJORITY of the States; the NPV changes that to allow winning by a PLURALITY ("the MOST") popular votes. With only 3 or 4 candidates in the field, typically the winner could easily have 64% of the population vote AGAINST him/her and yet win an Electoral College landslide!!
Again, continue to do your research and seek out information from CREDIBLE sources. I believe that in time you will conclude that the present Electoral system has worked beautifully since our nation began.