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.
We’re not expecting to be wined and dined. ANY ATTENTION for 2/3rds of Americans who are ignored under the current system would be appreciated.
I find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. Presidential campaigns spend 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they aren’t hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and can win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. Once the primaries are over, presidential candidates don’t visit or spend resources in 2/3rds of the states.
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states.
12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections Despite the fact that these 12 lowest population states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.
In 2004, Bush’s cumulative vote lead of 650,421 in the 6 then reliably Republican states only got him 19 electoral votes, while Kerry’s cumulative vote lead of 444,115 in the 6 then reliably Democratic states, got him 21 electoral votes.
Senator Robert E. Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee for President in 1996 and Republican nominee for Vice President in 1976, stated in a 1979 floor speech:
“Many persons have the impression that the electoral college benefits those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a misconception. Through my experience with the Republican National Committee and as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1976, it became very clear that the populous states with their large blocks of electoral votes were the crucial states. It was in these states that we focused our efforts.
“Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance.
“Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in States that are perceived to be single party states.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
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 is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware —75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire —69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont — 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
Under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just the 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
Well, I was not suggesting that the possibility of recounts should be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. I was trying to say, perhaps not too clearly, that in a very close election, you would need a national recount to verify the national popular vote. You couldn’t just recount certain states to verify who won the national popular vote. As I understand it, the national popular vote would drive the electoral votes under these NPV proposals, not just the vote within indivudual states, as now occurs.
I agree that the possibility of election recounts should not determine how we administer elections.
Supporters of National Popular Vote seek to dispel the many myths continually presented as facts by opponents. We believe that by exposure and discussion the reform will gain even more support than it has already.
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 is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed 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 smaller 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: 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 get elected. Every vote, everywhere, should be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections shouldn’t be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere should be counted for in the total number of popular votes of the country and DIRECTLY assist the candidate for whom it was cast.
“Why Are Conservatives Supporting the National Popular Vote?”
Because the RinoCrat Oligarchy in DC is scared of constitutional Government...imposed upon them by Flyover Country
He’s a seminar posting troll. It isn’t allowed to have opinions. Take a look at its posting history.
Better yet do a search of some of its comments, you’ll find the exact comments in various forums and newspapers all over the country.
Fraud is much more difficult to implement in a closely divided battleground state that isn't completely controlled by one party. It's far easier to manufacture large numbers of fraudulent votes in, say, California.
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?”
The amount of effort isn't the issue. The question is this - which system better facilitates large-scale vote fraud? Clearly, it's the Soros-supported NPV initiative.
These morons are NOT conservatives.
Casey Stengel was much smarter, (and more eloquent), than Dick Stengel....
Fred Thompson is a senile old reverse mortgage-pushing asshat.
And to paraphrase Don Corleone, “I think he’s been hanging around those Hollywood finocchios too much.”
Your posts are just rambling nonsequiturs. To justify your stance, you cite polls? The whole purpose of the constitutional election regime is to avoid the idiocy of referenda like your moronic polls. As for populous states never agreeing on anything, no s*** sherlock. But if you get a kickass demagogue on the campaign trail who knows how to pander to them, they’ll line up right quick.
That’s the way Nebraska and Maine allocate Electoral Votes.
And then a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just the 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
Your demagogue scenario supports your support for the current system, how?
rinos?
dc insider who have zero chance otherwise?
I say require CLOSED primaries.
it is already bad when all the $$$$$$$ go to three or four states in election years. this would make it three or four CITIES.
why not make it per county? answer because this is about electing the left not americans.
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 far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. A “big city” only campaign would not win.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
The number of electors is constitutionally based on the number of senators and congressional districts, not counties, of each states.
I know the latter.
The issue is the fact that we have more city than suburban dwellers and with obmacare and biggov mooching that is only going to grow the government dependent cities.
That's certainly a legitimate concern. Here's an interesting comment on the subject from a visitor to my blog.
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?”
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.