I love how the Globe works "liberal conspiracy" and Bush losing the popular vote into adjoining paragraphs. They accuse the GOP of following conspiracy theories (while, of course, ignoring the eight years of "Bush lied" and "9/11 was an inside job" crap coming from their side of the aisle) immediately after reviving the canard of Gore winning the popular vote.As supporters see it, the proposal could hardly be any more democratic with a lowercase “d.’’ The National Popular Vote would ensure that every vote counts in presidential elections and would abandon the Electoral College system that gave George W. Bush a victory in 2000, despite his losing the popular vote.
But with that starting point, many conservatives view the initiative — which the Massachusetts Legislature endorsed last week — as nothing short of a new liberal conspiracy.
I've already said this is a horrendous idea - tying the electoral votes of one state to the popular vote nationwide is a de facto scrapping of the electoral college and will result in politicians concentrating their campaigning - and pandering - to a small handful of population centers. What will be interesting to see, though, is what MA does when a Republican wins the popular vote. We've already seen how MA handles things like gubernatorial appointment of Senators - I surmise if the GOP candidate secures the popular vote we'll see MA scrambling to go back to the Electoral College...
Ah, Massachusetts: The birthplace, and graveyard, of liberty.
That is all.
13 comments:
Of course it's "democratic with a lower-case d." That only matters to the issue of whether to do it or not if you think that democracy with a lower-case-d is always a good thing.
It's democracy taken to an extreme that figures only numbers matter.
A popular vote would completely fuck fly-over country, which is exactly why the left likes it.
Not to mention that no one will give two shits about Delaware.
"Fairness" means the Democrats always win.
What you need is for a GOP state to get their results in first, assuming that votes can be announced as soon as they are counted. After that it's a snowball effect.
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 rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but now used 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 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Massachusetts (the 13th largest population state, with 12 electoral college votes) and 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. 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.
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 in name recognition as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
When 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 rules, 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.
Likewise, 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.
For example, 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 the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
A survey of 800 Massachusetts voters conducted on May 23-24, 2010 showed 72% 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 86% among Democrats, 54% among Republicans, and 68% among others. By gender, support was 85% among women and 60% among men. By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.
Massachusetts voters were also asked a 3-way question:
Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the states electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?
The results of this three-way question were that 68% favored a national popular vote, 16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district, and 16% favored the existing statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a states electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
With National Popular Vote, votes cast in Massachusetts for the Republican presidential candidate will be counted towards his or her national total. Republican votes for president will matter and be counted in blue states and Democratic votes will matter and be counted in red states.
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.
“Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”
Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action.
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. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all rule that is currently the law in 48 states.
Being the globe and all, they ignore the fact that Bush did win the popular vote. Even the NYT admitted that minor tidbit after gore failed to steal the vote in FL nine ways to Sunday.
Catering to the larger electoral vote states (higher populations) precludes the retail campaigning we have in NH and IA now, the crowds increase security and control.
Personally, I wish these nimrods would leave NH alone every 4 years, but straight out democracy was rejected by the founders for a reason.
@toto...
You fail to grasp the fact that the National Popular Vote bill does NOT represent every voter in every state, and does NOT make each vote count..what it does is promise the *electoral votes* of a given state to the winner of the *national* popular vote. These states that are creating their own compact are screwing their voters. Because, if Candidate A wins the state, but not the popular, the electoral votes (which is the truest representation of the will of that states voters) go to Candidate B, and the voters of said state have now been disenfranchised.
How is *that* being fair? Screw being *fair* to the candidates...that has nothing to do with our election process. Our Constitution sets forth a framework of *self-governance*, not *lets try to be fair to the candidates*. Politics is a dirty, nasty business. We have a structure that has served us VERY well until the point where Congress amended the Constitution to allow for direct election of Senators (Senators were elected by the State Legislatures) and the awarding of Electoral Votes according to popular votes in the state by the collective population, as opposed to only those folks who have skin in the game, which is to say landowners and taxpayers. (keep in mind that when the Constitution was drafted, only landowners paid taxes....your wages weren't taxed, therefore not everyone had the right to vote.)
Saddly, we took the most perfect system ever devised by Man, started mucking with it to make it *fair* to more and more people, and now its all screwed up. We would be better served going back to the original Constitution and first 10 Amendments, and stop trying to out-think the Founders.
United States Senators are appropriated at two per State, regardless of the size of a State's population.
This was put in place by the Founders so as to balance the influence of highly populated states, and their larger delegations in the House.
Much the same logic was applied to the Electoral College structure.
The People of the United States DO NOT elect the President of the United States. Properly, they vote for Electors, as appointed by a given State. Each State sends it's Electors to represent that State, which is a Sovereign entity. Yes, even when joined with the entity which is the United States.
It is most certainly not the "Federal Supremacy and Fifty Lesser Political Subdivisions".
And to be Constitutionally precise, a State may choose whatever method of directing it's Electors as it may wish, including having no popular vote, but instead taking the directive of the State Legislature as to the committment of their Electors.
One thing the Founders absolutely never intended, was for the election of the President via "popular vote". And certainly, no "popular vote" at the Federal level, regardless of what a given State may do.
And that pretty much shoots down the entire premise of Toto's argument, especially as postulated in his/her 3rd segment.
Frankly, I don't give a damn what any given "poll" says about our system. If they feel that strongly about it, then let them lobby for a Constitutional Amendment. 'Cause that's what is required to change our system at that level.
Myself, I'll go with the wisdom the Founders employed in laying our system.
Oh, and anytime I read or hear someone having to go such rhetorical lengths as Toto, (including all the "hand-waving logic") in explaining how some "noble change" is "for our own good", I find myself checking the vault for full mags, sharp bayonets and clean, lightly oiled bores.
Such "changes" never portend well; witness the 17th Amendment, which was the beginning of the slow undoing of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Fortunately, that fight is still on, and our side has just might be (finally) slowing the momentum towards Statism, leading hopefully, to a stronger relation of the States in their engagement with D.C.
A compact of States, such as the one in play, is a direct subversion of the Constituion, and the Union. Nothing less. It is an end run around the Amendment process, and left unchecked, it will precipitate a Constitutional crisis, with all that entails, up to and including civil war, secession of various States throughout the Union (not regional, but scattered throughout the land), or outright anarchy.
I'm not sure as to whether that's Toto's wish or not, but it'd be par for the course for those who hold that point of view.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
I might go as far as the way Maine and Nebraska(?) do it; allocating by congressional district and then throwing the 2 on top at-large.
But if you want to get rid of the electoral college (or any other Constitutional Thing) do it by amendment, not by rules-lawyering. Be honest that you want to replace the representative republic with a direct democracy - and see how far that gets you...
Post a Comment