Arnold Ahlert, at JWR, talks about the push to require states electors to cast their ballot based on the national popular vote.
He has a very interesting take on this foolish and probably unconstitutional wave of laws.
My big question is; "Why the Hell should the electors from say, Iowa, be forced to cast their votes for the candidate chosen in California?"
We are NOT America, a democracy.
ReplyDeleteWe are the United States of America, a federation of states. Every four years we choose the two top executives of this federation, and each state has a unique vote in the process. It's called the electoral college, and it's a fundamental framework of our REPUBLIC.
What have you given us, Mr. Franklin?
"A REPUBLIC, if you can keep it."
I've been thinking about this - it seems an easy way to game the election is to spend heavily in large, liberal states (or rig votes massively in same states).
ReplyDeleteA million extra votes in each of Cali, NY and Mass would go a long way toward throwing the election back to Obama.
Just sayin'.
Lewy, there's no doubt in my mind that the 2012 election is foremost in the minds of those pushing for "democratic" elections. :-L
ReplyDeleteThe Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 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."
ReplyDeleteNeither 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 rule) 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 rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is 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 rule (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 rule.
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 rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
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).
ReplyDeleteThe 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However,,if anyone is concerned about this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
ReplyDeleteWith National Popular Vote, big states, that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates' attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split -- five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey).
Of course Toto is correct in that there is nothing in the constitution describing how states electors may cast their votes.
ReplyDeleteSo I will amend my comment above to read merely 'foolish' and withdraw the 'probably unconstitutional' portion.
For progressives, knowledge of the Constitution is useful only to the extent the Constitution can be gamed and punked. Otherwise they could give a crap.
ReplyDeleteIf we want to go back to original language, let's revive the "privileges and immunities" clause, and stop trying to run the "federal government can do whatever it damned pleases" train through the "commerce clause".
The specification of the electoral college in the Constitution (as opposed to popular vote - which the drafters could have specified had they intended it) is more than enough "penumbra and emanation" to strike down this ridiculous law if it went against "progressive" interests. But it doesn't, so they don't.
And at one point is "popular vote" determined?
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that voters on the west coast does not have the same rights for voting for President as voters in the east, as the outcome of western states is determined by voters in the eastern states (except for close races such as Florida in 2000)?
Does this mean that a thugocracy just has to control a few key places to take over the country?
Will the voices of the dead voters in Chicago be even more powerful?
As Ahlert states in the article, this will have the effect of reducing the power of the states even further, whether by plan or as an uunintended consequence.
ReplyDeleteI think it is by plan, to make it ever less likely that state gov'ts will dare talk back in any way, to DC.