FrankRep
01-21-2008, 02:11 PM
An Attempt to Eliminate the Electoral Effect
The John Birch Society (http://www.JBS.org/)
Jan 21, 2008
ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:
New Jersey Governor John Corzine has just signed a National Popular Vote Bill into law as part of an effort to eliminate the electoral college.
Follow this link to the original source: "Taking radical step (http://www.northjersey.com/news/nationalpolitics/13928042.html?c=y&page=1)"
COMMENTARY:
New Jersey Governor John Corzine has just signed a bill that would deliver his state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections, even if the majority of the Garden State’s voters choose another candidate. This makes NJ the second state to adopt such a measure; Maryland was the first.
This initiative is an interstate "compact" and will only take effect if enough states to constitute a majority of the nation’s total electoral votes (270 out of 538) adopt the measure. This is part of an effort to transition completely to a popular-vote system and is currently being considered in several other states as well.
On the surface, the idea of determining the president by a simple majority vote seems to make sense. This is the main argument of the compact’s supporters, one this Daily Freeman editorial (http://www.dailyfreeman.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19206262&BRD=1769&PAG=461&dept_id=82701&rfi=6) says is "hard to argue with" as it labels the current system "arcane." But if the system is arcane, it’s only because the media have failed to explain it adequately. Perhaps this is because an understanding of it also eludes them. So let’s discuss the matter.
Ever concerned about the concentration of power in the hands of a few, the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us a system with checks and balances. Thus do we have three branches within the federal government — the executive, legislative and judicial — and two chambers within the legislature, the House and Senate. There must also be a balance between the feds and the states, which is why the Constitution defines their respective powers. But then there is the matter of the states themselves: What of the threat of larger states dominating smaller ones? This is where the electoral college comes into play.
Because of how electoral votes are determined, the system has the effect of leveling the playing field somewhat between large and small population states. Here’s how it works. A state receives an electoral vote for every one of its congressman and senators. Since the number of congressmen is proportionate to the state’s population but every state has two senators, the smaller a state’s population, the greater its relative benefit from receiving the two “extra” electoral votes for its senators. To illustrate this, I’ll contrast one of the states with the fewest electoral votes, Wyoming, with the state having the most, California.
When we take California’s 53 congressman and add its 2 senators to arrive at its electoral vote total of 55, we find that the 2 senators only increase its electoral-college influence by about 3.8 percent. But adding Wyoming’s 2 senators to its 1 congressman to arrive at its electoral total of 3, increases its influence by 200 percent. Thus, while Wyoming’s population is only about 1.4 percent of California’s (and its relative impact with a popular vote system would be similar), under the present system its electoral influence is about 5.5 percent that of the Golden State.
Yet why should any state enjoy representation greater than what its population warrants? Isn’t this, as the Daily Freeman says, "truly, undemocratic"?
The answer is that we’re not a democracy, but a republic.
This reason for this is found in the words of the Father of the Constitution, James Madison:
Democracy is the most vile form of government . . . democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
While a national popular vote wouldn’t spell the end of our republic, it nevertheless is a departure from that upon which this nation was founded. It’s also largely driven by a fit of emotionalism fueled by overblown rhetoric about election results contrary to the will of the people. The truth is that the American people are residents of states, not just citizens of a nation-state. Moreover, while electoral victory has eluded popular-vote winners four times in our history — 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 — the popular-vote movement has gained momentum only recently. I think you can guess why.
When President Bush won the presidency in 2000 after narrowly losing the popular vote, the left became furious. Quickly forgotten was that prior to the election, pundits theorized that Al Gore was more likely to enjoy such a victory. Interestingly, no one seemed to complain when this was the consensus.
Thus, what animates the current popular-vote movement is not respect for the will of the people but the will of a political party. Democrats now believe that such a system would more likely benefit them since large population centers are their strongholds. This is why the vote in the N.J. legislature to pass the bill fell along party lines, with the Democrats in support.
Partisan passions aside, support for a national popular vote betrays contempt for, or ignorance of, our system of government. Its advocates may lament how the ballots of those voting contrary to their state’s majority aren’t reflected in the electoral college; they may complain that non-battleground states are “ignored” during campaigns. But citizens have a popular vote only within their states because we are to be a union of states, not an amalgamation of them. Moreover, what should concern us is the balance of power in politics, not the balance of attention when politicking. A national popular vote might have the superficial effect of bringing campaigns and their empty promises to different regions, but also the very tangible one of reducing the influence of smaller states.
Campaigns without state borders is an idea without merit.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/node/6917
The John Birch Society (http://www.JBS.org/)
Jan 21, 2008
ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:
New Jersey Governor John Corzine has just signed a National Popular Vote Bill into law as part of an effort to eliminate the electoral college.
Follow this link to the original source: "Taking radical step (http://www.northjersey.com/news/nationalpolitics/13928042.html?c=y&page=1)"
COMMENTARY:
New Jersey Governor John Corzine has just signed a bill that would deliver his state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections, even if the majority of the Garden State’s voters choose another candidate. This makes NJ the second state to adopt such a measure; Maryland was the first.
This initiative is an interstate "compact" and will only take effect if enough states to constitute a majority of the nation’s total electoral votes (270 out of 538) adopt the measure. This is part of an effort to transition completely to a popular-vote system and is currently being considered in several other states as well.
On the surface, the idea of determining the president by a simple majority vote seems to make sense. This is the main argument of the compact’s supporters, one this Daily Freeman editorial (http://www.dailyfreeman.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19206262&BRD=1769&PAG=461&dept_id=82701&rfi=6) says is "hard to argue with" as it labels the current system "arcane." But if the system is arcane, it’s only because the media have failed to explain it adequately. Perhaps this is because an understanding of it also eludes them. So let’s discuss the matter.
Ever concerned about the concentration of power in the hands of a few, the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us a system with checks and balances. Thus do we have three branches within the federal government — the executive, legislative and judicial — and two chambers within the legislature, the House and Senate. There must also be a balance between the feds and the states, which is why the Constitution defines their respective powers. But then there is the matter of the states themselves: What of the threat of larger states dominating smaller ones? This is where the electoral college comes into play.
Because of how electoral votes are determined, the system has the effect of leveling the playing field somewhat between large and small population states. Here’s how it works. A state receives an electoral vote for every one of its congressman and senators. Since the number of congressmen is proportionate to the state’s population but every state has two senators, the smaller a state’s population, the greater its relative benefit from receiving the two “extra” electoral votes for its senators. To illustrate this, I’ll contrast one of the states with the fewest electoral votes, Wyoming, with the state having the most, California.
When we take California’s 53 congressman and add its 2 senators to arrive at its electoral vote total of 55, we find that the 2 senators only increase its electoral-college influence by about 3.8 percent. But adding Wyoming’s 2 senators to its 1 congressman to arrive at its electoral total of 3, increases its influence by 200 percent. Thus, while Wyoming’s population is only about 1.4 percent of California’s (and its relative impact with a popular vote system would be similar), under the present system its electoral influence is about 5.5 percent that of the Golden State.
Yet why should any state enjoy representation greater than what its population warrants? Isn’t this, as the Daily Freeman says, "truly, undemocratic"?
The answer is that we’re not a democracy, but a republic.
This reason for this is found in the words of the Father of the Constitution, James Madison:
Democracy is the most vile form of government . . . democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
While a national popular vote wouldn’t spell the end of our republic, it nevertheless is a departure from that upon which this nation was founded. It’s also largely driven by a fit of emotionalism fueled by overblown rhetoric about election results contrary to the will of the people. The truth is that the American people are residents of states, not just citizens of a nation-state. Moreover, while electoral victory has eluded popular-vote winners four times in our history — 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 — the popular-vote movement has gained momentum only recently. I think you can guess why.
When President Bush won the presidency in 2000 after narrowly losing the popular vote, the left became furious. Quickly forgotten was that prior to the election, pundits theorized that Al Gore was more likely to enjoy such a victory. Interestingly, no one seemed to complain when this was the consensus.
Thus, what animates the current popular-vote movement is not respect for the will of the people but the will of a political party. Democrats now believe that such a system would more likely benefit them since large population centers are their strongholds. This is why the vote in the N.J. legislature to pass the bill fell along party lines, with the Democrats in support.
Partisan passions aside, support for a national popular vote betrays contempt for, or ignorance of, our system of government. Its advocates may lament how the ballots of those voting contrary to their state’s majority aren’t reflected in the electoral college; they may complain that non-battleground states are “ignored” during campaigns. But citizens have a popular vote only within their states because we are to be a union of states, not an amalgamation of them. Moreover, what should concern us is the balance of power in politics, not the balance of attention when politicking. A national popular vote might have the superficial effect of bringing campaigns and their empty promises to different regions, but also the very tangible one of reducing the influence of smaller states.
Campaigns without state borders is an idea without merit.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/node/6917