By Cindy Chafian - Staff Writer
One of the few things untouched by the federal government reform bills was the election process but a few states have passed legislation to alter the election procedure in ways that would normally require an amendment to the US Constitution.
An organization called The National Popular Vote is focusing their efforts on changing the way the President of the United States is elected into office. According to their website, “The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia).”
The changing of federal election procedure has in the past been held to the Constitutional amendment standard that required and act of Congress as well as ratification of the amendment by 75% of the states, currently standing at 38. For the system proposed by the National Popular Vote campaign to become de facto federal election procedure, only 270 of the 535 electoral votes are needed or 50.4% of the states. This reduces the standard required by the Constitution by 25% or roughly 13 states.
The National Popular Vote campaign set it’s wheels in motion since around 2006 and in less than 4 years have succeeded in changing the way seven states designate their electoral college votes. Hawaii, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Washington state, New York and most recently, Massachusetts enacted laws allowing their electoral votes to be applied using the popular vote mechanism.
According to The National Popular Vote campaign, with this bill, “the electoral college vote for each state would no longer be decided by a delegate casting his or her vote, rather, the electoral votes for any state that adopts this bill as it’s lawful way of deciding how their votes are to be determined, would automatically be granted to whichever candidate obtained the majority of votes nationwide.”
Patrick Rosenstiel, spokesperson for the National Popular Vote said, "The purpose the National Popular Vote proposal is to give every voter, in every state equal influence when electing the President. By awarding a majority of Electoral Votes to the presidential candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states, we ensure a vote in Montana or California (currently fly-over) counts as much as a vote in Florida or Ohio (currently battleground). Like winner-take-all rules undervalue non-competitive states (because they award all of the Electors to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in a given state); a congressional district system would marginalize non-competitive congressional districts (most experts agree 400 of 435 districts are not competitive).”
Each state has the same number of electors as it has Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress. Thus the states with the highest population have the most in the House of Representatives have the most electors. Candidates for elector are nominated by their state political parties in the months prior to Election Day.
Originally the Framers intended the electoral college to be determined by “districts” meaning that each district represented an electoral vote therefore whichever candidate won the vote in the district he would receive that particular vote. Sometime in the 1800’s this method was changed and it became the "winner-take-all" rule meaning whichever presidential candidate received the most votes in each state would be granted all of that state’s electoral votes, reducing the importance in non-competitive regions of a state. Many of the Founding Fathers considered the “district system” to be the most equitable.
The National Popular Vote campaign is a push to get the state legislatures with the largest number of electoral votes to change the way their state’s electoral votes are assigned. Under their plan, if a state enacts this bill into law, all of that state’s electoral votes would be applied to whichever candidate won the “popular vote” nationwide regardless of who the voters in that state actually voted for. So basically, Candidate B could win the popular vote in your state, but if your state passes this law, and Candidate A won the popular vote nationwide, then they would receive all of your state’s electoral college votes.
When questioned as to whether or not this was just a way to circumvent a Congressional amendment changing voting legislation, Mr. Rosenthiel stated, “Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution gives states the exclusive right to award electors in anyway they believe best serves the citizens they represent. Two-thirds are currently fly-over and are not considered when President's run and/or experience less influence as President's govern. Not a good system for states or the country. It's time to change.”
Opponents argue that straight popular vote is an erosion of state’s rights. Shelby Blakely, member of the National Leadership Council of the Tea Party Patriots and host on Hot Tea Radio said “This system will have the same effect on state representation that the 17th Amendment had.” “The 17th amendment effectively wiped out state representation at the federal level and moving towards a straight popular vote will change the foundation of the United States from a representative republic to a democracy; which is the equivalent of three wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.”
Other’s agree that the Popular Vote mechanism would just take our country a step further away from what the founder’s intended.
When asked about the current population proposed voting method, Michael Boldin, founder of The Tenth Amendment Center said that,"it's another step away from a constitutional republic and a step toward the assault on states rights.” Mr. Boldin favors a return to the district method originally conceived in the Constitution. He quoted John Adams by saying "the system of government is partly national and partly federal." He says that the electoral method was developed to protect smaller states from being overrun by the larger states.
Those who support the bill claim that the intention of the National Popular vote is to avoid the neglect some states feel during a presidential campaign. According to their website they claim
“Another shortcoming of the winner-take-all rule is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, or organize in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign visits and ad money in just six closely divided "battleground" states. A total of 98% went to just 15 states. In other words, voters in two thirds of the states were essentially spectators to the presidential election.”
How exactly does moving in this direction help out those states with fewer electoral votes? If the intention is to spread the exposure and time spent by a candidate during a campaign to the entire country the risk of marginalizing smaller states who don’t have enough electoral college votes to compete with powerhouses like New York and California.
It’s hard to say whether or not either party would benefit specifically from the National Popular Vote Bill. It stands to reason that Republicans might be more hesitant to adopt this method because many traditionally red states tend to be more rural and have smaller populations giving them disproportionate power in the Electoral College. However, the more highly populated areas in the country historically lean to Democratic control. Under a straight population vote, the strong possibility exists that on order to gain the majority of the votes in the country, candidates would need to focus their time and energy not in the smaller less populous states but in the states with higher concentration of voters, thus reducing the attention paid to less populous, more rural and traditionally Republican states. In this election climate, any attempt to change the established voting laws by constitutional amendment or otherwise should receive due scrutiny.
Read more at New Patriot Journal HERE