![[Ed says Nay]](http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4958/1794/320/dont_trust.jpg "Ed says Nay")
DallasBlog.com | Tara Ross:Ms Ross acts as if this would be an insidious new evil. In fact, our existing Electoral College system already decrees that the 11 largest states can decide the next President, even if the other 39 states disagree. That's how the Electoral College system works already.
The proposed change is the Campaign for the National Popular Vote, spearheaded by former Sen. Birch Bayh (D-IN) and Rep. John Anderson (R-IL). The change actually tempers the power of big states. Those 11 big states would agree to abide by the wishes of the voters in the country as a whole. If the voters as a whole choose a different candidate, those 11 big states would agree to cast their electoral votes in favor of the candidate most popular to the country as a whole instead of the candidate who managed to win majorities in just those 11 big states. Such an outcome would be more democratic. Characterizing this scheme as being undemocratic and those proposing it as being hypocritical is unjustified.
Ms Ross mentions only in passing the real problem with this scheme. It's that matter of recounts. Florida 2000 revealed the dirty little secret that our voting processes are flawed, so much so that we can never get an accurate vote count even in just one state. If a close election like 1960 or 2000 were replayed under this new scheme, we might be looking at trying to get a recount, not just in a single state, but in the nation as a whole. Given that one side would use every legal strategy (and some of questionable legality) to obstruct and delay a recount, like George W. Bush partisans did in 2000, imagine the controversy any attempt at a national recount would create. No, flawed as it is, and as biased as it is in favor of small states (and so-called red states), the Electoral College system does have one advantage. It avoids the need to ever attempt a national recount.
Ms Ross, having written a book on the Electoral College, is certainly aware that this proposal doesn't "tear apart" the Electoral College. It is not an "end run" around it. It is not "undemocratic". And it certainly does not reflect "unmitigated arrogance of attempting to effect constitutional change without bothering to first obtain the consent of the governed." Ms Ross conveniently neglects to tell her readers what the Constitution itself has to say about the Electoral College: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." We already have variations among the states in how their electors are chosen. The Constitution empowers the states to adopt variations as they see fit. This latest proposed variation is just one more. The constitutionality of the proposal is not an issue. Ms Ross doesn't say what her real reasons are for opposing this change, but defense of the Constitution isn't it.
4 comments:
I agree! Below was my response to Tara Ross at her blog site.
Also, there actually is a much __lower__ chance of a contentious recount with a national popular vote than with 51 separate winner-take-all contests -- FairVote's blog has an entry quoting an upcoming paper by Penn professor Jack Nagel on this topic. See
www.fairvote.org/blog/?p=42
Here's the response to Ross:
Tara, I'm afraid you're as wrong about this plan as you are in your defense of the Electoral College.
First, the Supreme Court in Bush v.Gore stated with absolute clarity that state legislatures have total power over how to allocate their electors -- to the point that they can appoint the electoral slate they want without holding elections. (States legislatures commonly did this in the early years of our republic, and Colorado did so as recently as 1876.) Given this fact, a state legislature clearly has the power to choose to allocate electoral votes to the national popular vote winner.
Second, states have every right to enter into interstate compacts -- binding agreements for collective action/inaction. They do it all the time, with several hundred now in place, ranging from the Port Authority to the Colorado River. So that part of the plan passes constitutional muster too.
Essentially, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you like the Electoral College system as it is, you have to accept that states have power over how to allocate electoral votes and thus can choose to enter into an agreement with other states to collectively award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. If you don't like that, then try to change the Constitution.
I would hope you would confront the arguments we laid out in our Presidential Election Inequality report, www.fairvote.org/presidential. The current system is excluding almost every small state (12 of 13 states with less than 5 electoral votes were essentially won without either major party candidate lifting a finger in 2004) along with two-thirds of all states.
That's not the way to hold our leaders accountable. To address that lack of equality, I'm for a national popular vote to make every vote equal wherever it is cast. You may disagree, but if so, does that means you support the system as it is without changes? If so, then get out and engage the National Popular Vote campaign on the merits of national popular vote without wild accusations of unconstitutionality.
There may be a lesser chance of needing a recount with a single nationwide popular vote, but if it is ever needed, it is impossible to imagine it being done in a timely and fair manner. It's a scary enough worst case that we ought to devise a system that doesn't include that as even a remotely possible outcome.
There are several questions all mixed up in the discussion about the Bayh-Anderson proposal.
1. Is it Constitutional? Yes. The Constitution delegates to the states the manner of choosing electors.
2. Is it democratic? Yes. Electing the President through nationwide popular vote is more democratic than the existing system whereby voters in smaller states have disproportionate weight in Presidential elections.
3. Is it good for America? Ms Ross argues that the current system promotes national coalition building. Election by popular vote would be more democratic. Goodness is subjective. You decide.
Ed, I understand your concern about a national recount, but no other modern, full-fledged democracy, including big ones with lots of voters, would not have a democratic election out of fear of its failure to be able to run that election. Instead, they invest in what it takes to run elections. The U.S. can do it too. We are the world's most powerful, wealthiest election. Let's invest in a voting process we all can trust.
Post a Comment