A 501 support group, sponsoring the the elimination of the electoral college, publicly derided Senator Katz for his not voting yes to remove the Electoral College. It was in Market Watch on Thursday, and the News Journal on Sunday.
The reason Senator Katz did not vote for pushing forward with the popular vote bill, is that he thinks it is wrong.
And I agree with him.
Everyone hates the electoral college at some point in their life, yet it has weathered over 700 Constitutional Amendments to get rid of it.
The NPV ( National Popular Vote) compact, is a method to get around this problem without changing the constitution….
Is this Constitutional? Will it muster court challenges? The Constitution gives states the method of determining how their electoral votes are cast. Bypassing that process without an amendment, should, be deemed unconstitutional…. After all you are changing years of Constitutional practice, without, even a legislative vote….
Furthermore, states not part of the Compact, would then be excluded from the electoral process. The decision on who would be president would be made only by those states who’d signed the compact.
The electoral college, was originally enacted, because not everyone trusted the country bumpkins with the powers of voting. Hell, you could buy a vote with moonshine… Enough moonshine, a crook gets into government… The electoral college prevented that. (There is nothing in the original Constitution that says Electoral delegates even have to vote the same way as did their state’s constituents.
And most importantly, the Electoral College protects the rights of states.
For example roughly 390,000 Delawareans voted in 2008, our last presidential election. Delaware has 3 electoral votes. As most of the readers here know, 390,000 is .001 of our nation’s population. In percent, Delaware voters make up .1% of the population. In a tight election, those 3 votes have some meaning. Mathematically, we have .5% influence in the electoral college. That is five times more clout, as the spinners would say…
Lastly, the electoral college provides clarity. We have had close elections before. In fact, the Bush/Gore race is one of recent memory, and probably the reason we are debating it now. The electoral college provides a clear line of who won. We have to have that. We all lived through a pretender in the White House for 8 years. But there was a system that we could follow, and say by the rules enacted, George Bush should be president….
Now imaging if we had an election that was only 10,000 votes off? How would you decide if the underdog challenged that figure, where those 10,000 votes were? There are votes misplaced in every election, even in Delaware. Mistakes get made (Paradee/Thornberg come to mind)… How can you go through an entire country’s voting system, and make sure every vote is legitimate?
At least with the electoral college, you have decisiveness.
Katz is right for not allowing this compact to go forward. It is ill thought, and has never been tested.
The electoral college is the rule by which we’ve always played.. If you’re going to change the rules, why not change football, why not change baseball, why not change hockey? Let’s just change the rules when our team doesn’t win…
Exactly.. Losers always hate the electoral college, especially if they won the popular vote. Winners never see a problem with it…
It is, what it is… Katz should be commended. Tom D’Amore, Co-Chairman of Support Popular Vote should be ridiculed and humiliated, and perhaps tried for treason.
kavips 
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 4, 2012 at 10:34 am
anonymous
Democracy, shamocracy.
Having ‘votes’ count, is wrong for whom? The rich and powerful.
“The reason Senator Dr. Katz did not vote for pushing forward with the popular vote bill, is that he thinks it is wrong,” said kavips.
One man’s opinion, eliminating ‘the vote.’ What’s almighty ‘right’ about that? 700 Amendments to get rid of it. 700 attempts for the people to be heard. Lots of what has passed as ‘right’ has ‘wronged’ the people. This is a country where, the Constitution should be able to be challenged, amended.
Country bumpkins can’t be trusted with ‘powers of voting?’ 1) Not every 99%er is a country bumpkin. 2) Should citizens deemed to be ‘country bumpkins, just not be counted; just not vote?
Hell, how many slick politicians are bought? Enough dollars, the government is bought. (Which of course, it has been.)
If corporate dollars are people, they have an almighty voice – aimed at getting those electoral votes. Average Joe Doe, is mute, next to Corporate Doe.
“There is nothing in the original Constitution that says Electoral delegates even have to vote the same way as did their state’s constituents.” That’s a very bad thing – not a ‘good’ example. It means an American vote can be made meaningless, a fraud, a hoax. Another republican or 1%er hoax upon the people.
“…..the Electoral College protects the rights of states.” And can do away with the majority of voters’ intentions.
Delaware having more clout electorally, than it should, shouldn’t be an example of ‘what is ‘right,’
but instead just another point of ‘what is wrong.’ with the electoral system. The electors are free to ignore the state’s popular vote – at a percentage advantage to boot. And wrong again.
Add the present day PAC hundreds of millions of dollars to an archaic system that can ignore the popular vote and you get, something that no longer is a ‘democracy.’
The example – living through the 8 horrendous Bush Co years; is exactly why the popular vote needs to mean something; something other than the corporate rich and politically powerful, having a system in place, whereby they can buy/steal an election.
Denying the numbers (votes,) is similar to politicians denying science. The numbers are the truth, the denial is the disconnect. The truth is treated as a hoax, causing democracy to be the ‘hoax.’
Kavips asks, “How can you go through an entire country’s voting system, and make sure every vote is legitimate?” Oh, horse and buggy! How can you not. On the local level. Even the Fla. Bush country chad fraud, was verifiable. One’s SS number is verifiable; bank accounts verifiable, medical records – verifiable, pollution output, Wall Street ,phone calls, everything – verifiable. Computers, kavips, computers.
Kavips says, “At least with the electoral college, you have decisiveness.” Dictators have decisiveness. Voters (in a democracy) should have a vote that counts. If it is counted, then ignored – what’s the point of voting at all? Consider the original lack of transportation, communication, verification, time restraints, etc. that made electoral college a necessity to move forward, at those extreme times. What was the necessity of a horseback past, was not/is not – the most democratic voting system for the present time. Of course Katz knows that. Would the good doctor practice 18th century medicine instead; should the energy industry burn fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow, when in either case it means – there won’t be a tomorrow?) (Let me put this leach upon you; let us pollute you children’s future into extremes, chaos and extinction.) Democratic systems must be able to stay, democratic. Refusing to allow votes to count, when now they can be counted in an flash, is a known flaw in the system, which is now being used to deny democracy. Reminder: Bush.
Quote: “It {one man, one vote} is ill thought, and has never been tested.” Reply: One man, one vote is tested, every time a ‘fair’ vote is held anywhere. Otherwise what’s fair? Corporations are people = corporations should vote. Dollars matter, votes don’t. What a Centerville guy says, matters; whereas, a voter’s vote, need not matter – we’ll stick with that. Sure, that’s fair, in the privileged world of 1%ers.’
Change football, baseball? Has it changed? How about taking chemicals to enhance muscles, size, performance, endurance or paying to physically harm opponents’ players, players placing bets, etc? The men originally hitting a ball with a stick for sport, never thought that would happen either, as ‘sports’ have become multi billion dollar corporate enterprises, where money talks, the ‘right’ thing walks, if the rules aren’t brought up to date.
American government is not a silly ole, pass time of the past. Billions of lives, the future of the planet, depend on Americans doing the ‘right’ thing. But some would rather not, particularly when money/power is at hand. American democracy was not/ is not – an ‘as is’ perfect system. In fact, on it’s present course, it is a system, that will not survive. Take corporate greed, the financial gains of releasing pollutants, buying political influence, as one of many, many examples that could be used. Polluted planet = game over. Decisive. That’s the real violation, not imaginary treason because voters want their vote to be counted. And it isn’t left unnoticed, that Bush Oil Co had it’s way with the people’s vote. Bush Oil Co even went on to redact and change scientific studies regarding climate change, started an oil war because WMD didn’t exist, eliminated, fought against regulations, etc, etc.
It isn’t just – “Let’s just change the rules when our team doesn’t win…,” kiddies.
But it is time to examine who’s rules we are forced to live/die by, when what passes for ‘democracy’ equals planetary destruction. Here’s big oil/coal’s vote, rising rapidly.
http://co2now.org/
Peasants (country bumpkins) shouldn’t have to go begging that their vote should count. Opt for a BushCo arrangement’ instead? – democracy, shamracracy. Look back at those unending republican damages.
Americans expecting democracy should just let money/power (1%ers/ republicans) call the shots, kavips? The game isn’t over quiet yet. We have one last change up to bat and need a fair playing field or – we could just shut up and die.
An outstanding conversation:
June 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm
s e (@oldgulph)
A 501 support group, NOT sponsoring the the elimination of the electoral college, publicly derided Senator Katz for his not voting yes to preserve the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and ensuring that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don’t matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country, including Delaware.
June 4, 2012 at 1:30 pm
s e (@oldgulph)
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.
June 4, 2012 at 1:33 pm
s e (@oldgulph)
No state would be excluded from the electoral process. The decision on who would be president would be made by every voter in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. That majority of Electoral College votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
June 4, 2012 at 1:34 pm
s e (@oldgulph)
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party’s dedicated activists.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
June 4, 2012 at 1:38 pm
s e (@oldgulph)
With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, in 2012 will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states with the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by three jurisdictions.
Like Delaware, more than 2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
June 4, 2012 at 1:44 pm
s e (@oldgulph)
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes!
June 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm
s e (@oldgulph)
The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.
June 4, 2012 at 1:47 pm
s e (@oldgulph)
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where more than 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Presidential campaigns have spent 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they were not hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and could win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state. 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored. That’s over 85 million voters, 200 million Americans. Once the primaries are over, presidential candidates don’t visit or spend resources in 2/3rds of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.
With national popular vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.
June 4, 2012 at 1:49 pm
s e (@oldgulph)
A survey of Delaware voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 79% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
By age, support was 71% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 77% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 81% among women and 69% among men.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
June 4, 2012 at 1:51 pm
s e (@oldgulph)
The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
June 4, 2012 at 11:16 pm
kavips
Thank you for your comments. They do what comments are supposed to do: they inform.
I will respond with a post, but I did want to thank you for the wealth of knowledge you provided….
June 10, 2012 at 9:48 pm
John Young
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
November 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm
John Young
prescient methinks