| Going the Way of the Seventeenth Amendment |
|
|
|
| by Tara Ross | Thu, Apr 10, 2008, 09:08 AM |
|
Is the Electoral College headed for the scrap bin of history? Three states, holding 46 electoral votes, have now agreed to allocate their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, assuming that several more states (holding at least 224 more votes) agree to join them. An anti-Electoral College movement, the Campaign for the National Popular Vote (NPV) has been gaining momentum in recent months. Those states adopting the NPV legislation agree that they will enter into an interstate compact with other like-minded states. The participating states would allocate their entire slate of electors to the winner of the national popular vote once the compact goes into effect. The compact binds participating states when states representing 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to its terms. For years, many have assumed that it would be impossible to get rid of the Electoral College. The hurdle of a constitutional amendment is simply too high. Three-fourths of the states will never agree to such a proposition. But now it begins to look like the Electoral College could be written out of the Constitution anyway, in much the same way that the direct election of Some Americans may be surprised to learn that Senators were chosen by state legislatures before ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. The original constitutional provision resulted in part from the Founders’ desire to implement republican, as well as democratic, political principles in their new government. The Senate was intended to be a deliberative, more statesman-like body than the House, which would be more populist. The former indirectly represented the people, while the latter was a direct representation. At least as early as 1826, some proposed to change the system. They argued for a more purely democratic election process for The complaints against the system, however, were constant. Over time, people forgot the reasons for this republican aspect of The Electoral College is in danger of falling prey to the same process. The criticism against the institution is constant. Most Americans know little about the system except what they hear in a sound bite on the news. They have little idea of the enormous protections that are provided by Today, three states with 46 electoral votes have passed the NPV legislation. As few as nine additional states could complete this change, if the nine biggest (currently nonparticipating) states were to also approve it. Elimination of the Electoral College—something that was once thought impossible—could become possible. Americans should take this opportunity to educate themselves about this important constitutional protection while there is still time to prevent it from becoming a relic of the past.
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (13)
...
written by Jeff Turner , April 10, 2008 Tara: Thank you for bringing this sad development to the attention of DallasBlog readers. The Founders of all persuasions despised the notion of a democracy at the federal level. Almost to a man, they insisted on a federal republic. Hopefully, someone will block this wrongheaded development in the courts. First, Art. I, sec. 10 of the Constitution provides that "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation." It appears that these states are in fact entering into their own confederation. Second, Art. VI, clause 3 declares that the "... Members of the the several State Legislatures, and all executives and judicial officers ... of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Those legislators/governors who adopt this NPV legislation are undermining the very Constitution they have sworn to support.
...
written by equalitynotrevenge , April 10, 2008 Payraise alert Payraise alert!! Excellent well written article. When big babies dont get their way they take the ball and go home. The American public is so , how can I put this nicely, uninformed, yeah thats it, uninformed, that surely if they took the time to "Get it" they might not let spoiled brat politicans get their way.
...
written by ElHombre , April 10, 2008 Perhaps there's support for this kind of thing due to the Electoral College being abused during the 2000 election. A system which places the worst President in history in charge has a serious black mark against it.
...
written by Dan Comstock , April 10, 2008 Sara, you wrote a most needed article on this subject. The Electorial College is one of the most underappreciated parts of our system. To me this is a Paul Revere call for Americans to wake up. The three states need to return to the principle of federalism and continute to support the separation of powers (state and federal) for which the Constition wisely provided. To ElHombre I would answer that if the Electoral College was abused it was abused by turning an election into a court case; by a State Supreme Court refusing to abide by the State Legislature's clear direction; and by making a mountain out of a molehill with regard to people voting who themselves did not trouble themselves to learn how beforehand. Finally, if Bush was the worst President in history, what do you think of the election of Lincoln (who most agree was one of the best) and who was also elected by a slim minority in the popular vote but a majority in the Electoral College. The fact is that the Electroal College is a protection to our fundamental liberties. Pure democracy only destroys a country by pandering to immediate, passionate even though sometimes short lived opinions. America represents the oldest democracy in the world (at least of large countries). It also represents one of the oldest governments in the world. To use an old expression, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's listen to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who believed in the special relationship of the States to the Federal Government.
...
written by Tara Ross , April 10, 2008 Jeff, I appreciate your nice comments. Unfortunately, the plan probably is constitutional (at least with congressional approval), because the applicable section is not clause 1 of Article 1, Section 10, but clause 3. (“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”) I wrote more here: http://communities.justicetalk...r-not.aspx Having said that, I think this is basically a loophole in the law – I imagine it never occurred to the Founders to insert a protection against this particular end-run around the constitutional amendment process. I doubt they ever envisioned that the state legislatures would be so foolhardy as to subordinate their own states’ rights/desires to the decisions of other states. Let's hope that most other state legislatures realize that the Electoral College provides them with an important tool to protect their own states' interests. Tara
...
written by RelicMM , April 10, 2008 Because of the serious flaws in human nature, a pure democracy is the worst form of government. There are no safeguards against the inherent corruption of power. The Electoral College minimizes corruption and guards against a tyrannical dictatorship.
...
written by michael a. , April 10, 2008 The education that most Americans today have with the Electoral College is quite an intimate one. The Electoral College overrode their wisdom in 2000 and gave them the President they have had to endure for over seven years now. He has acted from day one as though he had some sort of overwhelming mandate even though he received less votes. I would say they are informed about it more personally than most generations before them and as such are quite capable of ridding the nation of it if they choose.
...
written by Bob Reagan , April 11, 2008 As usual, Tara has written a well reasoned and erudite column. One aspect of the push for the 17th Amendment was omitted. There were a significant number of times in the late 19th and early 20th Century when states went partially or wholly unrepresented in the Senate because of the inability of the their legislatures to agree on who would serve. It was not so much of a Progressive Movement ideological goal as it was a practical means to end what could continue to be a serious problem. The Constitution, as originally written, provided no mechanism to break state legislature gridlock in this regard. It was not so much of a Progressive Movement ideological goal as it was a practical means to end what was a serious problem. I do not see a similar consideration in this interstate compact movement. I also do not see states sacrificing their potential influence in a Presidential election by emasculating the Electoral College, either. If a sufficient number were to join in such a pact, to only sure result is full employment for lawyers (to which I could hardly object).
...
written by equalitynotrevenge , April 11, 2008 Opponets of this article. Instead of "Attacks/name calling" please supply reasoned thought on why Tara Ross is wrong. That way more of us can join your side and get your goal. Otherwise, we must stick with commonsense
...
written by michael a. , April 11, 2008 Equalitynotrevenge: I was looking for reasoned thought as to why Tara was right. I didn't read anything in the article about what actual protection the amendment provided us with other that we were in danger of losing it and I needed to be worried about that. It does appear on the surface that as we parade around the world preaching the gospel of democracy, we can't seem to elect the individual to the presidency that has received the most votes. Even to an educated person much less the third world, this appears to make no sense. Forgive me if I am not aware of the nuances that make this a good thing because all I have to go on is that the wrong person ascended to the Presidency in 2000 and both we and the rest of the world will reap the benefits of that for some time to come. Perhaps if we were in a better place nationally, some of us would not feel so strongly about it. Perhaps then we would feel "protected" from the judgment of the majority; I however, am not feeling it.
...
written by Jim B , April 11, 2008 Don't let NPV delude you into thinking that it will promote representative government. It favors the rule of the biggest faction and the exclusion of any other voice in politics. The debate on NPV should also include a discussion on proportional representation in Congress. Those who hold office are represent the People of the US and not just political parties which seem to have commandeered the political system for their own purposes with winner-take-all schemes. The influx of money from national parties is interfering with regional decisions. Year long campaigns and polls undermine an individual choices. If one wants to criticize the existing system one should look at its structural failings. Political systems fail in predictable ways just as engineered structures do. Those who want sole power strive to block the opposition.
...
written by Dan Comstock , April 11, 2008 Again, my regards to a wonderful article by Tara (not Sara) Ross. This is really a big issue and deserves more than knee jerk reactions because of dislike for the present President. The real issue here is representative government where States do have some say in the process opposed to 100% democracy which will only succeed in removing all incentive for Presidential candidates to appeal to individual States. The candidates could then just concentrate on getting the grand total by identifying a few large blocks of interests and catering to what would be popular in some of the largest cities while dismissing any concern for regional and State interests in the process. It should also be noted that whenever the Electoral College does not elect the candidate with the largest popular vote it always seems to be by a small margin. Having an occasional slight discrepancy (e.g., 47.87% vs. 48.38%) is a small price to pay for the protection that the Electoral College gives to our system in the United States (not the singular United State) by giving each candidate the incentive to try to win each state rather than just pull off enough to supplement the big blocks of persons identified to gain the popular majority. You do not lose you vote just because your State tilted to the other candidate; you simply lost the election in your State. For the Electoral College to function the best, the winner in each State would get the total number of electoral votes allotted for that State (based upon one for each Senator and one for each Congressman). Destroy the Electoral College and the election is reduced to a simple majority across the country which leaves many State and Regional interests unaddressed and in the worst case would tend to increase the polarization of our country. I recommend we try to get those States who are traveling this road to return to the system that has served us well for many years. Write comment
|
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
