Posted on 10/14/2011 7:39:32 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The national spokesperson for group that seeking to take the selection of the president out of the hands of the Electoral College says the movement is gaining steam.
Tom Golisano of the “National Popular Vote Initiative” was in Des Moines Thursday talking about the effort.
The group needs states that have 270 — or half of the electoral college votes — to approve the change to make it happen. “There’s a lot of enthusiasm around our position now, it’s more a feeling of when and no if it’s going to happen,” Golisano. He says 10 or 11 states have signed up and they have bills in the legislatures of 35 states. He says it’s an effort that’s long overdue.
Golisano says the group had first targeted the 2016 election to get enough states to change, but says the increased momentum makes 2012 a possibility. He says one hurdle there’s a lot of misunderstanding about how the electoral college works and also about the movement to change to the popular vote.
^
^
^
[snip]
^
^
^
There are now television and newspaper ads running in Iowa touting the change to the popular vote that attack Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry. Golisano says Perry’s the only candidate that’s taken a stand to stay with the electoral college.
“It’s unfortunate Mr. Perry has taken somewhat most of the brunt of this, the fact is he has put his position in writing, and no one else has, and that’s why we’ve focused on Rick Perry,” Golisano says. Golisano says he’s more encouraged now than he has been about Iowa making the change to the popular vote, but wouldn’t say what he thought the chances were of that happening.
Well, whatta surprise! Maybe this has something to do with the fact that Perry is the strongest constitutionalist in the race for the GOP presidential nomination this time around — and he is of intentionalist persuasion.
To end the electoral college (established at Article II, Section 1) would take a constitutional amendment (Article V), not a simple "vote" of like-minded states.
Do these people believe the Constitutional mandate is "optional," whenever they'd like a "better" outcome than what it prescribes?
Sounds to me like they prefer a "rule of men," not a rule of law.
Exactly. One advantage to the EC system is that massive vote fraud in, say, Chicago can only accomplish so much—if the state's votes are going to the Democrat, it really does not matter for the Presidential election.
However, with a national total vote, each fraudulent vote in Chicago will nullify any legitimate vote anywhere in the nation.
We would be crazy to get rid of the electoral college...that is the heart of our republican form of government when selecting the president.
I do, however, think that awarding electors by congressional district and 2 at large per state is more in the spirit of the Constitution’s intent than is the state winner-take-all system.
Plus, from what I’ve seen of Perry, he’s not one to back down just because of name-calling. (Even though this batch of name calling is particularly bad.)
Actually, they are not looking for an amendment, they are passing an interstate compact.
They still need both chambers of Congress to approve the compact, which is unlikely to happen.
-PJ
How would that work? What is an interstate compact? How can that override the Constitution?
Yet the "winner take all" system is there to help smaller, low-population states defend themselves from being overwhelmed by the "people's will" of the big, populous states. IIRC from my civics class of long ago, this was the Framers' intent for the "winner-take-all" system.
The Electoral College originally was a compromise between those who wanted the President elected by national popular vote, and those who wanted congressional appointment of the President.
The Electoral College has worked pretty well for over 200 years, and personally, I would not like to see it tampered with.
This was considered sufficient to satisfy the requirement for an electoral college. As you read on, it appears that our current system really isn't that similar at all, but there is not doubt that each elector voted for the President and Vice President on their own. That is why I say that per congressional district is more in tune with the spirit of the Constitution. I do not want to get rid of the Electoral College. I want it to be as close to the original as possible.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.Article II, Section 2
[Article. XII.][Proposed 1803; Ratified 1804]
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. — The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Thank you, Brother xzins, for the important reminder. It is quite obvious that our current electoral system of voting for a president/vice president ticket does not conform to the requirements of Article II, Section 2.
But I do not know when the original instruction was changed, or for what reason; nor do I remember when the "winner take all" method was adopted, if I ever did know it.
Can you tell me?
I do confess that I fear "messing around" with the status quo; in the current intellectual/cultural/moral climate, I figure things would only be made worse than they are. IOW, we'd be less likely to get more in tune with the original spirit than to innovate some new thing that would probably drag the law of unintended consequences into effect.
I bet you a nickel that amending what we have now would only get us farther away from the originalist spirit than closer to it.
I don't trust the political class to do the right thing, ever, these days....
The states trying to abolish the Electoral College are very likely run by politicians that see a benefit to their own party in so doing. There is no principled reason for it.
Under current conditions, I think it may be best to leave well enough alone. FWIW, JMHO.
Thank you so much for writing!
Thanks shield. Hitlery called for its abolition after Gore failed in his coup attempt after the 2000 election.
BB, you are a gem. This is my take on how it worked, but I’ve pinged P-Marlowe who is a bit of a constitutional expert in the law.
The nation was a pioneer nation. They could not easily assemble, travel, or communicate. That was another reason the republican form of representative government appealed to them.
So, they did not have a national election as we know it for president. Instead, their individual state legislatures determined how the electors in that state would be chosen. These electors would be the ones voting for the President and Vice President. The legislature could have appointed them by vote of the legislature or they could devise any number of schemes for the electors to be chosen. The idea was that the individual state legislators were most representative of the people in their own districts. Therefore it would not have been a violation of a democratic REPUBLIC for these representatives closest to their constituencies to select the electors. Or they could have had a popular vote by congressional district or by state. It was up to the legislature.
Electors could have stood for nomination as electors based on their promise to vote for some particular national candidate or they could have stood based on their support for themselves or for the person the group of electors debated was the best person for the nation. What seems clear is that ELECTORS were being selected and NOT directly a POTUS.
After the selection process, these electors met, consulted, and voted for 2 names, a potus and a vpotus. These ballots were collected, the various names listed, and then sent to the president of the senate in the national capitol.
The votes were tallied and any name that had a majority of the total number of delegates possible would be the president. Otherwise, the top 3 vote getters were voted on by the House. First, each state must have determined its choice, and then that state got to cast one vote for one of the top 3, the winner having a majority of the states.
This process really doesn’t seem to bear too much resemblance to what we do.
We vote directly for a P/VP, the state awards “all” electors to that team, and in most states that total number of electoral votes gets counted for that candidate in D.C. This is not a violation of the Constitution, but it seems to have cut the legislature and the wisdom of the electors pretty much out of the picture.
JMHO. Hopefully, Marlowe will correct my excesses.
Interstate compacts are constitutional because they are mentioned directly in the Constitution.
Article I Section 10 Clause 3:
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.
If a state wants to unilaterally award its Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, it is within its right to do so.
It is only when a state makes its Electoral College votes contingent on other states doing the same that it becomes a compact between states. Compacts between states need the consent of Congress before they can be enacted.
-PJ
So this is a compact to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner? That’s not the same as eliminating the Eledtoral College. Still, it would fall apart as soon as a Republican won and all the Democrat states backed out.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The states can decide to award their electors to the winners of each Congressional district, they can award all electors to the winner in the state, or they can award their electors by vote of the legislature, or they can come up with some other scheme within their state.
All of this is constitutional.
What the state cannot do is make their electoral votes contingent on what another state chooses to do. That makes it a compact between states.
-PJ
Another point in Perry’s support of the US Constitution!
It’s just sad how many supposed ‘conservatives’ are willing to shred our Constitution over their pet projects.
Thank you both so very much for sharing your insights! It’s been a very informative sidebar for me.
My, how "times have changed!" I surmise such changes came when the Progressives gained influence, starting around the turn of the Twentieth Century, which ideology was manifest in such luminaries as Woodrow Wilson and Louis Brandeis — people who just knew that they knew "what was best" for all the rest of us....
Thank you ever so much for your elegant essay/post!
I appreciate your kindness, Sister. Thank you.
The current selection process for the presidency is another great loss of state power. The state legislatures actually had as much power in the Constitutional system of governing the nation as did the House, Senate, and President.
After all the legislatures determined those who would select the president, and the legislatures selected the Senators from the various states. They were, therefore, a check over the House, normally considered the most representative of the national bodies.
The Senators would have been super-legislature representatives at the national level, and the presidential selection would have been the result of a process set up in each state to bring electors together to select the best person for the job.
The State Legislatures, then, had direct checks on the power of each other branch of government.
In our day, state legislatures are almost an afterthought.
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.