Print

"Look that Way!" While the Republicans pass National Popular Vote

Just 17 days until the end of this legislative session and it's gay marriage, gambling, and local government aid that are seizing the headlines. But there's something afoot at the Capitol which seems to have escaped any media scrutiny.

My jaw dropped when I read this little piece of news from the conservative Freedom Foundation of Minnesota's State News site last week "House Republicans advance bill skirting electoral college"

In a surprise twist, a House committee on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a bill that would require the state to cast its ten electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote nationally.

If passed, the law would not go into effect until enough states pass similar resolutions that the 270 electoral votes required to become President were achieved.

The legislation passed the House Government Operations and Elections Committee by voice vote before an empty hearing room. A lone lawmaker dissented.

“I have concerns that if we shift to a straight popular vote we dilute some of the powers of the state and the integrity of the republic,” said Rep. Duane Quam (R-Byron).

Ding, Ding, Ding!

 ........

To date, seven states (and the District of Columbia) with a total of 77 electoral votes have joined the compact. The most recent addition was Vermont, where Gov. Peter Shumlin signed a bill Friday.

Several more states are expected to approve similar measures this year, including New York (29 electoral votes) and California (55 electoral votes), where in 2009 bills passed both legislative chambers before being vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Each of the seven states that have enacted popular vote resolutions—Washington, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Illinois—are considered “blue states,” but the House bill comes on the heels of a Republican takeover of both legislative chambers last November.

But lawmakers said the legislation was not about political parties.

Rep. Pat Garofalo (R-Farmington), the bill’s author, said democratic principles should be placed ahead of partisanship. He noted the state would retain the right to opt out of the pact at a future date if lawmakers desired.

“Quite simply, this says that whoever gets the most votes wins,” Garofalo said. “We retain, for the lack of a better word, our sovereignty and rights on this.”

So Minnesota-- with its Republican majorities-- is about to push national template ie Copy/paste legislation that's been passed in states like Vermont and Illinois and is on its way to passage in New York and California. Hello McFly!  I mean, wake up and smell the coffee.  Who's lobbying here?  What's going on?  What an odd piece of legislation to bring forward if you want to be considered-- in any way-- conservative.  " I realize the word can mean many things in politics, but an unescapable underlying tenet of conservatism is most certainly tradition.

How exactly does Minnesota retain it's sovereignty, Representative Garafalo, when we will be handing over our electoral votes to multi-state compacts and handing them over based on the national popular vote rather than the vote of Minnesotans?  I mean- hey --I'm still embarrassed about 1984-- but Minnesota voted for Mondale and needed to be that sad-little blue on the big map because of that fact.

For those seeking to understand the issue more completely, The CATO Institute has a recent debate on the issue here. 

Don't these committees and legislators have staff that are familiar with google?

Liberals have been fighting non-stop since Bush's win in 2000 to change to a National Popular Vote, but in order to change the Electoral College, they would need a Constitutional Amendment...too high of a threshold for the activists pushing this....so they've moved the efforts back to the states.

From the 2008 book Rethinking American Electoral Democracy

Recently, a new proposal to "amend" the Electoral College has received some support. I put the word "amend" in quotations because the proposal is essentially a backdoor way to abolish the Electoral College without having to change the Constitution.  An organization named FairVote, which has former presidential candidates Jon Anderson and Birch Bayh among other known politicians on their advisory board, has pushed an interesting plan-- if you are opposed to the Electoral College- to enact a national pupular vote.  Briefly, this is how the plan works.  Remember that the Constitution mandates that state legislatures determine how electors will be selected.  Every state but Maine and Nebraska relies on the popular vote within the state to determine which candidate's electors are seated.  Under FairVotes's plan, the state legislature would ignore the state popular vote and choose electors based on the national popular vote.  Let's use the 2000 presidential election as an example.  Pretend that the state of Florida adopted FairVotes's plans.  The controversy surrounding the FLorida election would be moot since Al Gore won the national popular vote.  Instead of choosing Bush electors, because he won the popular vote in the state, Florida would have chosen Gore electors, because he won the popular vote nationally.  This would have allowed Gore to win the electoral vote and, hence, the election.

The aspect of FairVote's plan that is so unique is that, as I said earlier, the Electoral College will not be abolished; therefore the proposal does not require a constitutional amendment.  If FairVote can get enough states to pass the policy, then it will guarantee that a popular vote winner will not lose the electoral vote.  In a sense, the Electoral College is abolished while still remaining on the books.

So National Popular Vote is partnered with FairVote.  Jonaton Soros (George's son) is an active supporter and major donor to FariVote.  Here's his commentary in-- of all places-- The Wall Street Journal. Dec, 15 2008  "It's time to junk the electoral system and we don't need an ammendment to do it"

The Constitution is no longer in line with our expectations regarding the role of the people in selecting the president. Yet several previous attempts to eliminate the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment have failed, scuttled by the difficulty of the process itself and the tyranny of small-state logic.

Fortunately, a constitutional amendment is not necessary. Rather than dismantling the Electoral College with an amendment, we can use the mechanisms of the Electoral College itself to guarantee popular election of the president.

To understand how the proposal works, one needs to understand two basic principles. First, that state legislatures are basically unfettered in how they choose to appoint electors. And second, that groups of states can enter into binding agreements with one another in the form of so-called interstate compacts. There are many examples of such compacts, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the interstate agreement that guarantees a driver points on a Virginia driver license when he or she speeds in Maryland.

Under the proposed National Popular Vote compact, state legislatures would agree to choose electors who promise to support the winner of the nationwide popular vote. For example, if a Republican were to win the overall national popular vote, even if New Yorkers favored the Democrat, New York's Electoral College votes would go to the Republican. The compact will go into force when states representing 271 Electoral College votes have entered into it to guarantee that the winner of the popular vote will become president.

The first line is just scary.  Obviously it didn't scare former Minnesota rep (and Aspen Institute superstar,) Laura Brod who promoted National Popular Vote in a HotAir blog post last fall.  You can read that post and Ed Morrissey's response here. 

Look, there's no way around this fact:  The state-by-state push for National Popular vote is designed to circumvent the United States Constitution....and it is wholly unconstitutional.   The Constitution gives the States the FREEDOM to choose it's electors and our electors represent the people of Minnesota and our will.  In theory, they could (as our elected Representatives can) reject the will of the people and cast their vote for somebody other than the winner of Minnesota's popular vote.  But now-- we are putting them in a position to cast a ballot to represent the will of the people of New York? 

The argument that smaller states will "finally get the attention they deserve" doesn't hold water.  Rural areas will be completely ignored and campaigns will put those hundreds of millions of dollars into large urban and suburban areas only.  The next step will be a push to a national primary election.  There will be no diner hand-shaking or Iowa straw-polling.  Or-- if there is-- it will be mere frivolity.  Person-to-person campaigning reduced to a gimmick like the Presidential pardon of a turkey.  This will do absolutely nothing to help change the dynamics of modern day elections and it will only serve to push us further in the direction of "pop-culture" politics (and governance.) 

Are we this dumbed down? Do these legislators have any idea what they're doing?   This isn't about political party, this is about the Constitution!  This is about America!  No matter how hard the public school system tries to indoctrinate children otherwise, We ARE NOT a direct democracy, we are a constitutional Republic.  "Power to the people" pure populism sounds wonderful, but it is not how American democracy is designed.  The House of Representatives was to reflect this will (with it's abrupt shifts.)  The Senate was to be appointed by the legislatures.  Progressives changed that in 1913-- the same time they gave us the federal income tax incidentally.  Back then the argument was that Senators would be too prone to bribery and in the pockets of big business....gee, that problem was really addressed by the Constitutional change, don't you think?

It is critically important to keep the "character" of state elections .  Minnesota is a caucus state, Georgia is a primary state...and so on.  The people of that state decide those laws that impact elections, not the federal government. 

But the most obvious reason why a national popular vote should be scrapped is that the United States is at a tipping point.  In fact, we've already tipped.  Over Half the country (51%) has NO federal income tax liability, and tying electoral votes to the national popular "will of the people" may very well be the final nail in our coffin where majorities vote themselves benefits seizing the freedom of the minority. 

Nasty liberals are decrying "Tenthers" these days-- people who dare to advocate for state's rights.  But without the 10th Amendment, we might as well be Canada.  (One-world global thinkers would love it!) No thank you. 

This is not Europe with it's 27 parties and factions fighting, this is not some third-world country with coups and mob rule....our election system was set-up brilliantly by our founders and very intentionally and we have people who want to make "good enough" "better".  Nothing is perfect, but America-style Democracy is AS PERFECT AS IT GETS.  (And don't go there with original voting rights, or I'll school you on that too.)  

And can you imagine a National Recount? How would that work? 

Hit the phones and give your Representatives and ask them where they stand on this vote!  Based on only ONE dissenting vote in committee, I'm afraid it's well on it's way to passing and no doubt Governor Dayton will proudly sign this into law quickly.  If THIS is the type of legislation that Minnesota Republicans are going to tout as "bipartisan" at the end of session, then what a ship of fools we've helped push out to sea.

This is truly astonishing to me and it must be STOPPED or Minnesota Republicans will be responsible for handing over Minnesota votes for "the common good"-- and baby, those two words together ain't in the Constitution.  Thank goodness the Freedom Foundation "caught it"-- hopefully before it's too late.