What do you think of the “popular vote bill”?
Don Quixote on Aug 09 2011 at 6:55 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
In California, Gov. Brown just signed a bill that would require the state’s electors to vote for whoever gets the majority in the presidential election nationally, regardless of the vote in California. This idea has always struck me as strangely undemocratic, but nowhere more so than in California. Consider that California is solidly a Democrat state. The chances of a Republican carrying California and not winning the national vote are minimal.
On the other hand, a Democrat might well win a solid majority in California but lose nationwide. Yet California Democrats are the one who pushed through the requirement that, in that case, the electors must go against the wishes of California voters and vote for the Republican. Amazing!
Email This Post To A Friend
24 Responses to “What do you think of the “popular vote bill”?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Massachusetts passed a similar bill last year. The irony, of course, is that the bumper sticker of the 70s – “Don’t Blame Us, we’re from Massachusetts”, created in response to the 1972 presidential election – wouldn’t have been possible. In any case, the ramifications for small states are not at all positive: I doubt that the idiots who populate Beacon Hill particularly care about the law of unintended consequences -even when it bites them in the butt. (ie: changing law in ’09 to appoint a Dem. successor to Kennedy probably contributed to Scott Brown’s win 4 months later.)
Don Quixote: This idea has always struck me as strangely undemocratic, but nowhere more so than in California.
A democratic principle is one person one vote. Under the current system, a voter in Wyoming has more than 3x the electoral power as a voter in California. (They have 66x the influence in the Senate! and if they are in a filibustering minority, even more.)
The proposed system means that whomever wins the popular vote wins the Presidency, meaning each voter has the same influence on the results. The bill won’t come into effect until such a time as enough states have agreed to the proposal to ensure a popularly elected President.
I agree that having electors and giving disproportionate influence to smaller states are limitations on democracy, but they were intentionally inserted into the system by the Founding Fathers who were afraid of too much democracy. We can discuss whether they are good things, if you like. The point of my post, though, was the irony of the Democrats in California putting in place legislation that will almost surely hurt Democrats if it has any effect at all.
My comment that it was “strangely undemocratic” is the notion that, in the appropriate circumstance, even if every single voter in California voted for the Democrat, the Electors who are supposedly voting on their behalf, would be compelled by law to vote for the Republican.
I understand the point of the effort is to render the Electoral College meaningless. It is to do what jj has been talking about, change the Constitution without going to the trouble of actually changing the Constitution. Still, it strikes me as a strange way to do it. And, before we do, we as a nation ought to have a good discussion as to whether we want to render the Electoral College meaningless.
This is the left still smoldering over Bush’s win in 2000. It’s going to come back and bite them in their butts when Obama is resoundingly repudiated in 2012. Imagine the horror when all those California true believers realize that their electors are going to vote for whatever flag-waving terrorist the GOP is running!
Turning to housekeeping, I can see that Zach, as usual, fails to understand the American system as well as—what else is new?—leaves out a crucial part of the equation. (Being that Zach is a foreigner and English is his second language, I forgive him somewhat.)
If the U.S. were a pure democracy, it could function like the Swiss cantons and govern itself on a strict one man-one vote basis. However, it is a republic bound together in a federal system. Once Zach understands how federalism works, he may be able to see why it can only work if there is a means to balance the far superior power of large states against that of much smaller states. No balance, no union. Thus, we have a senate.
The Senate represents the states, which along with the people (House of Reps) are members of a union. Unions do not exist to exploit their smallest members. The problem here seems to be that Zach, agreeing with his fellow Europeans that might makes right, believes that the accident of living in California gives a citizen there the right to beat up on a citizen who lives in Wyoming based on “one man-one vote.”
(I have no idea where Zach got his numbers for Wyoming’s comparative clout in the congress. As discussed above, his concerns about the Senate are nonsensical because they show a lack of understanding of federalism. As far as a Wyoming citizen’s 3x electoral power versus a California citizen’s, who knows what far reach of the human anatomy that one came from?)
The states elect the president. He is not elected by popular vote. While it’s constitutional for a state to decide how it wants to instruct its electors, the cowardice of the left is on blatant display when it cannot even be bothered to put that question up to a popular vote. Ironic, no?
On the other hand, a Democrat might well win a solid majority in California but lose nationwide. Yet California Democrats are the one who pushed through the requirement that, in that case, the electors must go against the wishes of California voters and vote for the Republican. Amazing!
Then California Democrats will do what Massachusetts Democrats did with regard to filling US Senate vacancies: keep changing the law to fit the current political climate. Before 2004, US Senate vacancies were filled in Massachusetts by gubernatorial appointment. In 2004, Senator Kerry was running for President, and Governor Romney was a Republican. As it was unacceptable for a Republican governor to appoint a US Senator, the Massachusetts legislature changed the rule: henceforth US Senate vacancies would be filled by a special election held at least 145 days after the vacancy begins.
In 2009, Ted Kennedy had died, so Massachusetts had a US Senate vacancy to fill. Ironically, Governor Patrick was a Democrat, but Mass Democrats had ended gubernatorial appointment. The special election could hot be held until early January, which meant that until early January 2010 there would be one less Senator of the Democratic Party to override Republican filibusters. Recall the magic number of 60. Accordingly, the Massachusetts legislature changed the law after the death of Ted Kennedy to enable the Governor to appoint an interim Senator, who would serve in the US Senate until the special election.
The California legislature will act accordingly with regard to the electoral vote. Perhaps it will pass a law that says that all electoral votes will henceforth be cast according to how Jess Unruh would have voted.
Here is a money quote from Big Daddy Unruh on lobbyists: “If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women and then vote against them, you have no business being up here.
Don Quixote: My comment that it was “strangely undemocratic” is the notion that, in the appropriate circumstance, even if every single voter in California voted for the Democrat, the Electors who are supposedly voting on their behalf, would be compelled by law to vote for the Republican.
It could happen that way, but it’s much more likely that it will equalize the power of individual voters. In 2000, the person with the most votes didn’t win. The proposed system where the large states cooperate in awarding their electoral votes, California’s choice would have been President.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/gore-state-of-the-union/229115/
Martel: Dale clavo. (a Dios rogando y con el mazo dando)
I have no idea where Zach got his numbers for Wyoming’s comparative clout in the congress.
Here is where.
Population:
California 37,253,956 Wyoming 563,626
California has 66 times the population of Wyoming
Electoral votes
California 55 Wyoming 3
Population per electoral vote
California 677,345 Wyoming 187,875
By this method, red-state Wyoming voters have 3.6 times the electoral clout as blue-state California voters.
By a similar method, blue-state Delaware voters have 2.8 times the electoral clout of red-tate TX voters, and blue-state Rhode Island voters have 2.5 times the electoral clout of red-state TX voters.
As discussed above, his concerns about the Senate are nonsensical because they show a lack of understanding of federalism.
Indeed. The Senate’s existence is due to federalism. No federalism, no Senate.
The democrat party is not particularly democratic. You cannot possibly be noticing that for the first time.
Thank you, Gringo!
But we have a Republic. A representative voting system. This would be a basic change to the way we do things. As proposed by JB is what they have in Israel where in the Kensset Hamas had a representative 2% or some such nonsense. It is a fractal government where a bunch of 2%ers that are political enemies (or they would not be in different parties) band together to out vote the majority then go back to hating each other.
If you want to make our system more representative then change Caleefornia’s electoral winner takes all votes. Let the little state have their stake in our United Sates. Why is it all of sudden the Dems are against the little guys? Ah, I remember – they are largely flyover country.
I guess I should have read CM post above first before shooting from the lip.
Good on Ya CM
Charles Martel: If the U.S. were a pure democracy, it could function like the Swiss cantons and govern itself on a strict one man-one vote basis.
The wisdom of Federalism wasn’t the question. Rather, it was whether or not the proposal was democratic. Popular vote is more democratic, by definition. Like most such changes, there will be unintended consequences; and there is no perfectly representative system, even in theory.
Thanks, Zach. I’m sure your response had something to do with what I said, and I appreciate you practicing your English on me.
*snicker*
I can’t help but giggle when I think about the potential…….how many heads would literally explode if Sarah Palin decided to run and then ran away with the election? California would be required to vote as a whole for Sarah Palin, the object of their deepest hatred and target for their most vitriolic and slanderous lies.
Oh.
That.
Would.
Be.
Priceless.
*snicker*
*snort snort*
bwaahaahaahaahaahaaaaaaaaaa!
0>;~}
More ways to bribe people. Hooray
#1 Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, because states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), would award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states.
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that 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.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group. 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%.
Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
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 in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Florida – 78%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; 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 Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, Oklahoma – 81%, South Carolina – 71%, Tennessee — 83%, Virginia — 74%, and West Virginia – 81%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74%,, Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Oregon – 76%, and Washington — 77%.
Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “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.”
Thanks for writing, oldgulph. You have a good point about the battleground states. Still, if we are going to do away with the Electoral College, we should do it properly, by amending the Constitution.
By the way, I don’t doubt your stats, and you do state the source but a link to the source, if one is available, is always helpful.
Senators weren’t even elected by a popular vote. The President was to be elected by the states, not by a popularity contest. Because that brings us Obama sooner or later.
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It does not change anything in the Constitution. No amendment is necessary. 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.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “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.”
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither 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 method) 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, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (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 entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It 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 method.
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 method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
NationalPopularVote.com is a great resource.
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I did not mean to suggest that the national popular vote would violate the constitution or require anything to be changed. But the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to serve as a check on a nationwide popular election. The national popular vote movement would eliminate the effectiveness of that check.
The Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances. Complete elimination of one of those checks should only be done by changing the Constitution, even if such a change is not technically necessary.
Thanks for writing.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party’s dedicated activists.