Bob Henline is promoting Electoral Equality today at Non-Partisan. The sentiment is admirable, but there are a couple of things that need to be cleared up before anyone jumps on the bandwagon here. Let’s look at his description of what he is promoting:
For those of you unfamiliar with it, National Popular Vote is an organization that is trying to bring some semblance of equality to American presidential elections. NPV is doing this through legislation at the state level, legislation that would create an interstate compact to award each of the member states’ electoral votes to the candidate that receives the nationwide popular vote majority . . . It’s a long road, but shorter than the other alternative, an amendment to the Constitution.
Thankfully Bob is upfront about the fact that this really should be pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. On the other hand, this movement is technically legal unlike other Constitution skirting movements. So there’s the first problem – they are not pursuing an amendment which would be the proper course.
The second problem is much more problematic and it holds true even if this were pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. The goal of removing the Electoral College or simply rendering it obsolete moves us further along the path that the 17th Amendment set us firmly on, namely the path of fundamentally altering our structure of government from being a republic to being a democracy. I admit that some people would openly pursue that change, but I highly doubt that most people even recognize the difference and thus they are unqualified to decide which form is more advantageous to the nation.
For those who wish to understand what form or government we were given and why, here it is in 11 minutes. Although the video puts it better the summary goes like this – all forms of government over time tend to morph into oligarchy or dictatorship (aka the rule of man) except a Constitutional republic which is ruled by law (this only holds so long as it truly is ruled by law). A Constitutional Republic based on the rule of law is what the founders gave us, but we have been less than diligent in preserving it.
The video debunks the popular conception that socialism and fascism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum although it does not clarify that while they both favor government dominance (as opposed to a free society based on the rule of law) they are on the opposite ends of the economic spectrum. Part of the misconception for most Americans in and out of government is based on mixing the political and economic spectra as if they were a single spectrum.
I agree with Bob that people should be represented fairly in our electoral system. I live in a state that is almost universally ignored in presidential politics except what a campaign airplane runs out of fuel between Denver and Las Vegas so I should have a vested interest in receiving more honest attention in campaigns but I am not fooled by the appearance of fairness that is waved under the banner of simple democracy through direct election of all public office holders.
If the people of this country want to change the form of government with their eyes wide open then I respect their right and ability to do so. I personally see great value in the form that our founders fought for (physically and intellectually) and passed on to us in the Constitution.
While I certainly appreciate David’s open and honest discussion of this issue, one upon which it seems we disagree, I would like to clarify one small point. Providing electoral equality through the direct election of the president and vice president does not fundamentally change our system of government to a democracy from a republic. The people of the United States would still elect leaders to represent them in making the governmental decisions, it doesn’t abolish Congress or change the basic premise of government in any way. What it does, however, is ensure that each vote that is cast in the national election carries an equal value.
While the direct election of the President in and of itself does not negate the possibility of having a nation ruled by law under the Constitution it does contribute to the mistaken notion that we are a democracy. It also takes another step in taking away any functional notion of the states as sovereign political entities with an independent voice in the federal government just as the 17th amendment did.
The fundamental change has already taken place to a large degree in the way we perceive our government. Most Americans believe that the people should elect the president whereas the founders clearly set up a system where representatives of the people – who had no other office than to deliberate on the candidates and elect a president and vice president – were supposed to actually conduct the election. This would just codify that belief into law taking us that much further from the system we were given (and which I believe to be a better system than we currently have).
Measures such as this seek to wipe out the last vestiges of federalism.
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.
Historically, 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 in 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.
What the current 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 state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a “republican” form of government or is a “democracy.”
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 is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
If a “republican” form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a “democratic” method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.
mvymvy,
You are apparently ignoring or ignorant of two important factors in this issue. First, that the ultimate goal of NPV is not simply allocating the presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, but to actually abolish the Electoral College. They have chosen to leave the EC technically intact rather than try to pass a Constitutional amendment which is what would be required to eliminate the EC. Second, the reason the founders created the EC was so that the votes to elect the president would not simply come from the popular vote – it is not strictly democratic because the weight of each vote, by design, is affected by the makeup of the states of the nation. The whole idea was that the people would not directly elect the president.
The people have always had the right to vote for presidential electors, the change was that instead of voting for electors by name the people now vote for anonymous electors who promise to vote for a named presidential candidate. That move has caused that most people do not understand the purpose of the EC. If NPV succeeds in their efforts they will have removed any purpose for the existence of the EC at all.
Just as the purpose of the EC in presidential elections has already been obscured by the changes that states have made, the purpose of our representative or republican form of government has become obscured. The people of the United States think that Congress should simply be enacting laws according to the will of the majority. In fact the point is that the members of Congress should speak in behalf of the people they were elected to represent and produce the best government they are capable of producing using their own intelligence and understanding. The people then replace them whenever they feel that their interests are not being represented or when they believe that another candidate has a greater ability to create the kind of good government that the country and their district need.
You may argue that we still have a republican form of government – and we do, but look at the rhetoric and you will see that we have an expectation of a democratic form of government. That expectation must change, and if the goals of NPV are realized the expectation of a democratic form of government will be strengthened.