Time for a Second American Revolution?
There was something quite different about the words our nation's forefathers penned at the founding and early days of the republic. These words carried a weight and commitment that has not been seen in anything drafted by the legislature over the past several generations. These men put their own lives and fortunes at stake, right alongside those of the families that made up this fledgling nation. Their modern contemporaries, it seems, stake only our lives and fortunes and future, risking little of their own. The greatest risk they ever seem willing to make, if ever, is to take a stand on a point that could negatively impact re-election to their seat or election to a more powerful one. Where have all the statesmen gone?
I'm sure that many of the men and women who supposedly represent us in Washington embarked upon their political careers with great aspirations and the best of intentions. However, they easily become corrupted by the political machine; back door deals, the influence of lobbyists, selling their souls to the devil, etc. Even when they maintain the values that helped get them elected, they are often marginalized and rendered ineffective. These men and women cave to pressures that very few could withstand; sometimes, it is really hard to blame them. We have the best system of government in the world, but long-term, persistent corruption has resulted in a poor application of the system. It has suffered a fatal error and, for lack of a better remedy, needs a hard reboot.
We the People are also heavily to blame. We cannot simply point our collective finger at those we have elected, because after all, we elected them. Sure, we can try to blame it on the poorly-understood finer points of how we elect our representatives and executive in a republic, referring to mechanisms such as the primaries and the electoral college as "asinine" or "outdated," all the while not realizing how it all is supposed to work. It is easy to blame things we don't understand. It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck when I hear things uttered like, "This is supposed to be a Democracy," or "How can he be president when he didn't win the popular vote?"
It is time for a Second American Revolution. Those are dangerous words; such words were dangerous in 1776 and they remain so today. Talk of revolution can quickly throw one to the fringe, in the realm of treasonous nutjobs, or get you on half a dozen government watch lists. As such, we must be prudent in our use of such a weighty term, especially if we mean it with the same degree of commitment as our founding fathers did. I think we can be committed, yet not require a call to arms to effect the necessary change; I think we can be effective, without advocating the overthrow of our present system of government. As previously stated, we have the best system in the world, but the players aren't playing by the rules, the officials have been corrupted, and we've essentially all forgotten how to play the game. One way or another, things are going to change, at someone's hands, things are going to change; it can better our situation or we can botch it up and send us further down the path toward tyranny. This Second American Revolution need not be a violent overthrow; this next revolution must be one of education in the founding principles of the republic and intentional, consistent action to facilitate the election of a new generation of principled leadership, beginning with the US House of Representatives.
The US House of Representatives? Yes.
Many overlook the potential of using the US House of Representatives as a lynchpin in taking back control of the federal government. The Constitution grants the House several exclusive powers: the power to initiate revenue bills, to impeach officials, and to elect the President in the case of an electoral college deadlock. Probably the most important of these is the control over revenue; they hold the authority to decide whether or not to spend our money. The founders understood that having control over spending carries the potential of quickly leading to corruption. As such, we have the opportunity to replace our representatives in the House every two years, allowing us to hold them more accountable for their votes concerning funding things with taxpayer money. If the federal government wants to spend our money, it must first be authorized by the House. The Senate can only vote up or down on the funding aspect, from what I understand.
What if, through public-awareness mechanisms like the Tea Party movement, we could re-introduce an understanding of how our government is supposed to actually function and advocate the election of representatives who will vote to only approve funding for matters directly related to the enumerated powers of the federal government. This has the potential to effectively stop massive, unconstitutional programs (like Obamacare) by refusing to spend any money on the administration of the program. Measures such as these, combined with the passage of an Enumerated Powers Act (requiring all bills introduced in Congress to include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which each bill is being enacted) could go a long way toward restoring some order and restraint on this runaway freight train that is hauling our money into a black hole, along with our liberty. Perhaps this is an over-simplified and sophomoric perspective, which I'm sure someone will point out to me if it is, but couldn't that start the ball rolling in the right direction?
No matter how you look at it, a revolution of some kind is on the horizon. We can make it happen or we can let it happen, but it's going to happen. Let's be on the proper side of this battle and fight it using the rule of law and light of day to expose the things that need to be fixed. If we don't, things are going to get really messy. We've only gotten a little taste of it so far. Let's make our Declaration this November and draw that line in the sand.
So, revolution anyone?
© the stiff lizard
© the stiff lizard
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.
ReplyDeleteThe National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote would be counted for and 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.
Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
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 in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
ReplyDeleteThe National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Since a great deal of toto's response appears to be copied and pasted to many discussion forums and other blogs, I will not take the time at this point to go into great detail in refuting it. I will just reprint a small statement I read that I think makes a lot of sense:
ReplyDelete"Some people have complained since 2000 that if the winner of the popular vote doesn't become president, their vote doesn't really count, so why vote at all? But every vote does count; it just counts in a more complicated way. When you vote for president, remember that you're voting in a state election, not a national election. So your vote counts just as much as anyone else's in your state."
The source article has more information to help you understand the principle of the electoral college:
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/lessons/davidwalbert7232004-02/electoralcollege.html
An important thing to remember is that our system of government is intended to be a republic, not a democracy.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."
ReplyDeleteA "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote would be counted for and 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.
ReplyDeleteMost voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.
Now votes of voters who do not vote for their state's winner, and votes of voters who vote beyond the one vote needed to beat the closest competitor, do not matter or help their candidate.
Again, more copy-and-paste from other sites. Unless you have a new and unique pitch for this, I ain't buyin'.
ReplyDeleteWhile the National Popular Vote legislation being promoted is not unconstitutional, per se, it certainly violates constitutional principles and attempts exploit a loophole, circumventing the US Constitution. Welcome to Despots-R-Us. Would you like a frownie sticker? :(
Rather than copy and paste a bunch of stuff from other sites, as toto does, I will simply post a few link for further reading, if one is so inclined to follow them:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703578104575397100729241576.html
http://www.freedomradio.us/Joomla/index.php/election-2008/1999-unconstitutional-electoral-college-bypass-approved-by-second-state
http://wheethepeople.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/national-popular-vote-movement-unconstitutional-and-subversive/
The National Popular Vote propaganda is just the latest batch of smooth talking lies. All the political power becomes concentrated in areas of dense population (major cities) who would then decide the election. Hardly more 'fair' than the present system.
How would you like this situation:
1) Your state legislature has signed your state onto this National Popular Vote compact.
2) The majority of voters in YOUR state vote to elect Candidate X for president.
3) Enough people in OTHER states vote for Candidate Y to indicate that he or she would win the 'nationwide popular vote.'
4) YOUR states electors must now, by the National Popular Vote compact, cast their votes for Candidate Y, even though the majority of people in your state voted for Candidate X.
Don't say 'that could never happen' because that is exactly what WILL happen if such legislation is passed by the requisite number of states.
Please post some of your own thoughts, unless you are the one who authored the National Popular Vote propaganda on their site and related locations. If what you have to offer is what's already posted elsewhere, nearly verbatim, please just post a link and short comment. Of course, if you are an auto-posting bot, that replies with pre-written posts of any site detected with the words "electoral college" in it, then you probably won't read this.
Toto's last comment has been deleted. I do not hide the fact that I have done so. Every portion of it was pasted verbatim from other sites. Try a google search on any portion of toto's comments that have not been deleted and you will see how often the exact same propaganda material is duplicated elsewhere. It is useless to debate with a parrot.
ReplyDeleteAny pasting masquerading as posting will be deleted; no more troll food for you.
CATO did a debate on the national popular vote. I came away much more supportive of the idea. If states can apportion their electors as they see fit, then if they all choose to apportion them to the winner of the national popular vote, how is that bad?
ReplyDeleteRight now much of America's voters simply don't matter because they are too small to matter. Candidates spend all their time in a few states.
Q, I can respect your position on this because, well, it's your position, not copied from someone else's website. I remain against the premise, for the reasons I have cited. However, I am bound to respect that it is the decision of each individual state concerning how they choose to apportion the votes of their respective electors. I think that the current system works precisely as intended, but am certainly open to reasonable discussion on the matter. I would like to read the CATO position, if you would be so kind as to provide a link.
ReplyDeleteLInk to event at CATO
ReplyDeletehttp://cato.everyzing.com/m/audio/32553770/is-the-electoral-college-obsolete.htm?q=electoral+college+obsolete
Ray, a couple of things. First if you listen to the CATO debate, the NPV proponent (IMO) clearly won on points.
ReplyDeleteSecond, you laid out a scenario, here is another one: 49.9% of voters in your state vote for candidate A. But all your state's electors are given to candidate B, creating the illusion that candidate B has a clear majority, even though the electorate is really split. This is exactly what happens in 48 states with 'winner takes all' electoral vote allocation.
Even if 100% of the people in your precinct or county vote for A, They are forced to accept that candidate B gets all their votes. Isn't this the same problem you argue for with the NPV?
Two seperate points there...
ReplyDeleteFirst one, yes, that is exactly how it happens, on a state by state basis. Elections are, by their very nature, winner-take-all propositions. As you well know, we do not hold a national election for president; we hold state elections. So yes, if the majority of voters, be it 99.9% or 50.1%, vote to elect Candidate A, then Candidate A wins the election in that state. However the individual states, in their own sovereignty, maintain the right to apportion their electors as they see fit. That last statement being the reason I do not believe the NPV initiative can be declared unconstitutional, per se, because it involves passing a law at the state level, agreeing to be bound by the compact. That doesn't, in my opinion, mean that it is not unconstitutional in principle though.
Your second point just really depends upon the level down to which you choose to push the sovereignty argument. If we are going to push it further down to precincts, then why not down to city blocks or even households. There is a point where this becomes unreasonable; you and I simply seem to disagree on where that point is.
To me, the bottom line of this is a states' rights issue. That is partially what concerns me most about the NPV initiative. It gives the appearance to me of being a method of using states' rights to abridge states' rights. I am not at all comfortable with it.
Perhaps I am not looking at the complete picture, but I suspect I will hold the same position even once I have reviewed it further. I look forward to checking out the CATO piece; hopefully I will have a chance to take a look at it this evening.
Watched the CATO piece last night. I agree that the NPV guy wins on points, but competency level of the debator does not equate to superiority of the position. Some valid arguments were made but I don't think I gleaned anything new from the experience.
ReplyDeleteThis entire discussion stemmed from a casual comment made in reference to the electoral college. That is not really what my original post was intended to address. Perhaps I need to explore this further in my next blog posting.