The North Carolina Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in May 2007. The argument made at the time was that poor North Carolina gets no respect in national elections. The state has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1976; it was reliable, so both presidential candidates pretty much ignored North Carolina.
Not so this year. Presidential and vice presidential candidates have scheduled appearances in North Carolina in the final two weeks of the campaign. Barack Obama and John McCain have visited the state several times this fall. So have Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. North Carolina is getting the attention the supporters of the National Popular Vote bill had promised would come our way if we abandoned the Electoral College system. The difference is that this year North Carolina is "in play." Obama thinks he might win here.
There are two things wrong with the National Popular Vote. First, it is an end run around the Constitution, which calls for electors to select the president based on the voting in each state. If we are to abandon the Electoral College, we should do so honestly, by a constitutional amendment, which would require ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Second, the National Popular Vote would not benefit often-ignored states in the way many advocates contend. A popular vote system would change political strategies, but not in the way you might think. Some populous but often ignored states, such as North Carolina and California, might get more attention from presidential candidates, but political strategy would shift from winning states to winning mass numbers of voters. The most populous states — California, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, for example — would command most of the candidates' attention. Less-populous states that are now in play, such as Colorado, Iowa or West Virginia, would almost certainly be ignored. Candidates would fish where the largest number of fish are.
The changing political environment this year has shown that electoral strategy is not static. States that have not been contested can suddenly become "battleground states." It all depends on the country's political mood.
Good arguments can be made for a national popular vote strategy, and good arguments can also be made for keeping the Electoral College system, which emphasizes state sovereignty as the Founding Fathers intended. But these arguments should be made on their merits in a debate over a constitutional amendment, not over a back-door conspiracy to void the constitutional mandate to elect presidents via the Electoral College.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that needs to be changed in order to have a national popular vote for President. The winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes inside the state) is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is strictly a matter of state law. The winner-take-all rule was not the choice of the Founding Fathers, as indicated by the fact that the winner-take-all rule was used by only 3 states in the nation's first presidential election in 1789. The fact that Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district is another reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. All the U.S. Constitution says is "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 states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." A federal constitutional amendment is not needed to change state laws.
ReplyDeleteSee http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The "normal way" of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
ReplyDeleteHistorically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, nowadays, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.
In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.
In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the 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, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state .
The "normal process" of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run can be found by examining the way presidential candidates currently campaign inside battleground states. Inside Ohio or Florida, the big cities do not receive all the attention. And, the cities of Ohio and Florida certainly do not control the outcome in those states. Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knows--namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
ReplyDeleteFurther evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from national advertisers who seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. A national advertiser does not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because a competitor makes more sales in those particular states. Moreover, a national advertiser enjoying an edge over its competitors in Indiana or Illinois does not stop trying to make additional sales in those states. National advertisers go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located.
susan
My post never said that the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes is mandated by the Constitution. But what National Popular Vote is proposing is not merely tinkering with the way electoral votes are allocated by the states but, rather, is conspiring to create a back-door method to replace the Electoral College with the popular vote.
ReplyDeleteUnder the NPV proposal, electoral votes would not be allocated according to the way voters in that state voted; they would be allocated according to the outcome of the national popular vote. This is not tinkering with the electoral vote, it is, in essence, subverting it by obligating electoral votes to the outcome of the national popular vote.
If you want to replace the electoral vote with the popular vote, the proper way to do so is to eliminate the "electors" altogether, and that DOES require a constitutional amendment. Those who believe the popular vote is better should propose such an amendment, not try to achieve that objective by subverting the electoral vote and, thereby, violating the clear intention of the Constitution.