Comments (34) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Effort to undermine Electoral College continues
Tools
The Founding Fathers were deeply suspicious of direct democracy, which they often disdained as mob rule.
They well understood the doctrine, often attributed to Scotsman Alexander Fraser Tytler, that a direct democracy can exist only until a majority of citizens start to vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
More importantly, however, it's unlikely the federal union of the 13 original states could have lasted long had the founders not guaranteed the smaller states that their sovereignty -- their freedom to experiment with their own social and economic systems -- would not be swamped by the sheer numbers of their larger neighbors.
But a federal system, in which "reformers" have to fight for change in 50 state capitals, is anathema to those who want to see a large, central government control every aspect of American life. The latest incarnation of this lust for centralized power is the "National Popular Vote," a scheme to allow U.S. presidential elections to be fought and decided only in the country's left-leaning, populous urban centers.
Asserting that, "The occupant of the White House should be the candidate who wins the most votes," California Gov. Jerry Brown this month signed a bill that could hand the state's 55 electoral votes not to the candidate who wins California, but to the candidate who wins the most votes nationally.
Under the proposal, if states representing a majority of electoral votes -- the magic number is 270 -- pass similar legislation, the California bill would activate. To date, legislatures in eight states and the District of Columbia -- representing 132 electoral votes -- have passed laws to join such an interstate popular-vote compact.
In a letter to governors of the several states, House Speaker John Boehner, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry warn, "The goal ... is clear: to put the fate of every presidential election in the hands of the voters in as few as 11 states and thus give to a handful of populous states a controlling majority of the Electoral College."
Leaving aside the violation of constitutional intent and the legal challenges that alone is sure to draw, practical considerations are also daunting, the three men point out.
"The challenges of reconciling the differences in election law among the states should be obvious. One state's electoral votes could end up being cast by voters who are ineligible to vote in another state; or candidates could end up being elected with the electoral votes of a state in which they weren't even qualified to be on the ballot. Moreover, states that sign onto this plan could withdraw from it ahead of any election in which their favored candidate is expected to lose the national vote, destabilizing elections even further."
Furthermore, "The likeliest outcome in a close election would be a recount reminiscent of Florida in 2000 in every single state," the three point out. "This would result in endless litigation. ..."
And under this plan, needless to say, small states such as Nevada would be likely to see a presidential candidate in person only if his plane had to set down with engine trouble.
If Californians want more attention from the presidential candidates, they should consider awarding their electoral votes by congressional district, with their two "senatorial votes" alone awarded according to statewide popular majority -- the system already adopted in Maine and Nebraska.
Voter divisions are far closer in some of those districts, meaning that instead of either taking the Golden State for granted or writing it off as "unwinnable," presidential candidates would likely consider at least segments of California to be once again "worth fighting for."
Along with Nevada.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Under the current system, candidates spend two-thirds of their time and money in just six closely divided battleground states; 80% in just nine states; and 99% in just 16 states. That's precisely what they should do in order to get elected under the current system, because the voters of two-thirds of the states simply don't matter. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the concerns of voters of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
If every vote mattered throughout the United States, as it would under a national popular vote, candidates would reallocate the money they raise..
Why would we want to leave our electoral votes in the hands of voters in other states? What do we have in common with the Gulf States? Are there any shrimp in the Great Basin? Do we have offshore oil platforms on our side of Lake Tahoe?
What do we have in common with those states on the East Coast or Hawaii? And those BIG Government, Northeastern states have more in common with those European socialist democracies than they do with us.
It amazes me that Nevadans (or residents of *any* small electoral state, for that matter) woiuld actually *favor* such a thing. Small states are relatively OVER-represented in the electoral college. Why would residents want to give away that advantage?
Not that whoever wins the Presidency really matters. They're ALL miserable.
All those states which automatically award presidential electors to the popularly winning candidate or to that candidate's PARTY (like we do) are completely BRAIN DEAD. Presidential electors were intended to serve like pro-tem judges, not clerks.
The general idea was that a state would pick men who were well versed in realpolitik. Who would know how to *horse-trade* their individual electoral votes for goodies which would benefit their respective states. The way the Southern electors were able to trade their votes for an end to Reconstruction.
Any state which imposes a "binding" requirement is throwing away a potentially huge negotiating leverage. In a close election, what could Nevada get for putting its electoral votes up for bid? Sales of all US Dept of Interior lands within our borders? Yucca Mountain? More water from the Colorado River?
We get NONE of this. The statutes do however, give the Major (BIG Government) Parties a monopoly on power.
Nevada should go to the so-called "long ballot", wherein voters don't actually vote for Obama or McCain, but rather for a slate of Electors. For instance, Slate #1 *promises* to vote for Obama. #2 is pledged to McCain. #3 to anybody they darn well please. #4 only to a candidate who will open Yucca, etc.
I believe that system is already used in Louisiana.
Kohler, how much attention would any presidential candidate pay to Nevada without the electoral college?
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.
Nancy. Good grief Nancy, here's the reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
gbigs.....WOW you mean that all DEms aren't on welfare??? The Dems are inclusive they represent everyone as long as they care about thier fellow man......the repubs represent selfish mostly ME types. The main difference between a Dem and a Repub..THe Dem tends to use words like we and us the repubs use words like me and mine and those peole!!!!
This article and the comments below all sound like a lot of hot air in an attempt to rationalize bad behavior. Voting is an agression against ones neighbor. It is an act of violence. Stop behaving like barbarians, people! Time to be civilized and give up on centralized government already. It is as barbaric as kings and queens.
nancy. gates and buffet, jobs, and ellison are the richest in the US. all democrats. do the GOP rep them?
lawyer...the last time I checked we do not have a an election for a King or Queen. but president ...I'm glad you admitted that the repubs represent the rich... and don't care at all about the workers..That is the main reson that the repubs never have a voter regitration drive because THEY KNOW that the majority will vote against them, so they try to surpress the vote with bogus issues like voter fraud and just plain anything they can come up with to make it MORE difficult to vote, all this to protect thier status quo.....it would NEVER occure to them to become more inclusive and raise thier votering numbers that way(which the Dems have done)