Voting in California: Democrats Undercut Constitution
Last month I wrote about AR2948 (What Constitution?, also at California Conservative), a bill written by Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) in the California legislature that would undercut the Electoral process set forth in the constitution.
[AB2948] would ratify an interstate compact under which California’s 55 Electoral College members would agree to support the winner of the national popular vote for President regardless of the outcome of the election in California” (San Francisco Examiner, 4/26/06)What Umberg fails to understand (or chooses to ignore) is the very important role the electoral college plays in regards to balancing powers between states. Much the same way that the Federal Congress is composed of two Houses with very different numbers of members, the Electoral College plays a vital role ensuring that the interests and individuality of each state are not compromised. There was a distinct reason why the framers of our constitution did not call for a popular vote to determine the Presidency in the constitution
I did not expect the bill to pass, primarily because it so brazenly disregards the United states constitution, specifically Article I, Section 10 (h/t MikeZ), “No state shall … enter into any agreement or compact with another state.” Yet, despite the fact that the Bill presents an unconstitutional and unbalanced means of electing our President, on Tuesday the California Legislature still decided to approve it; the bill passed essentially along party lines, with Republicans opposing the bill.
Umberg, the author, says that the basic premise is understandable even to children. However, it appears as though the importance of state’s rights and balance of national and local interests, as set forth in the constitution, are not understandable to Democratic Senators. Hopefully Gov. Schwarzenegger will have the foresight to Veto this legislation.
Unfortunately, attempts to undermine our election system is not isolated to California. It has spread to the national level, with Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Kerry (D-MA), the two front-runners for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination, proposing legislation that would give felons the right to vote. Despite contradicting the classical social contract,
Since rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who simply choose not to fulfill their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, risk losing some of their rights, and the rest of society can be expected to protect itself against the actions of such outlaws. To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them,
this bill also contradicts current US election laws, which prohibit felons from voting. Kerry and Clinton see this as an opportunity for new voters, according to the Chron Watch:
“Whether they admit it or not, the Democrats need lawbreakers such as illegal aliens–who are being illegally registered as Democrats–and killers, rapists, and robbers in order to increase their base of far-left voters,” says Mike Baker, political strategist and pollster
The prevailing wisdom behind these legislative efforts is ‘if we can’t win on the issues, we’ll change the rules.’ Many are still bitter over Bush’ victory in 2000, claiming that Bush ’stole the election’ (despite being ratified by the left-leaning Supreme Court). More Democrats are in shock over the poor showing in 2004, showing the mentality of “we were right, it must be the voters that are wrong.” Whatever is the impetus behind these maneuvers, they should be rejected.
RELATED:
Voting In California: What Constitution?
Cross Posted at The Gentle Cricket
May 31st, 2006 at 10:30 am
I’m not sure I even understand their motivation for this - I mean, theoretically, if one were to pass a law disregarding the Constitution, one would think one would do so to benefit their own party. California has been leaning to the Democrats in the past few (since 88, I believe) Presidential elections. If this law had been in effect in 2004, California would have gone to Bush rather than Kerry. And however one feels about this result personally, what it equates to is a nullification of the will of the majority of voters in this state, and allows everyone else in country to choose for us. I cannot imagine any Californian from either party wanting this, but ESPECIALLY Democrats, given that the state tends to lean a bit left of national trends overall. In terms of long-term strategies, it’s bound to hurt that party more often than benefit it.
While I understand the premise of balance between States, I do think both the way electoral vote and congressional representation number are granted (especially numbers of Senators) benefits smaller states a bit TOO much, “weakening” the voting power of individuals who live in large states. This plan seems to weaken it even MORE, though.
If I were the Democratic Party, I could see attempting this in a state that shifts to Republicans a little more, maybe. If they really wanted to shift things over more to popular choice, they would have to work more on the Federal level, altering the system so that numbers of Senators are based on population numbers, for instance. On the state level, perhaps, they could allow for a split of electoral votes (like Maine) based on majority choice within district.
Really, though, it seems more like the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot.
May 31st, 2006 at 11:23 am
Look closer. This is nonpartisan. Look at the endorsers. Even if the blue states alone were to implement the national popular vote, they would not represent enough votes in the electoral college to elect the president.
This is about establishing what we should have had all along: a direct election of the president.
See this post on action in California.
May 31st, 2006 at 11:42 am
Jack, your analysis is flawed. If we have a direct election of the President, we eliminate the division of powers between state and federal interests. It would be equivalent to eliminating the senate, the branch of the legislature that provides influence to small states.
JT, you hit the nail on the head. It would have given the election to Gore in 2000, and a much larger majority to Bush in 2004. Neither of those situations accurately represents the citizenry of our country. Do, however, recognize that Other states including Colorado and Louisiana are signed on to this unconstitutional ‘interstate compact’.
May 31st, 2006 at 11:43 am
I don’t have a problem with a national election for president based on the popular vote. That is as it should be. There should be no gerrymandering in this case. If, as bloggers are won’t to proclaim, the electorate is intelligent enough to see through Washington lies then they are certainly intelligent enough to elect a president. Furthermore, if my recollection is not faulty, the whole idea of the electoral college was to act as filter on a largely uneducated and illiterate population. I would guess that that is hardly true any more (though some of us might disagree). As far as I can see, this isn’t a ’state’s rights’ issue.
May 31st, 2006 at 12:16 pm
The Founding Fathers were wise and prescient men, and the political framework which they established for our democracy makes as much sense today as it did then. The reason remains the same.
The purpose of the Electoral College (EC) is to provide “fair” weighting (representation) to each state, not just determined by population density. Thereby, the more populous and “diverse” (e.g. liberal) metropolitan areas on the map are prevented from dictating to everyone else ( “the flyover states” as Hollywood oft derides) — as much as they would like to.
In many ways, California serves as the perfect example. We live here and vote conservative, but there’s not a damn thing we can do about the liberal politicians that continue to get elected in this state. Why even bother voting? (San Francisco is a microcosm that mirrors this ugly situation)
If the “blue” states were the de facto deciders of every election (according to population alone), they — and the policies that their liberal representatives are promoting on the federal level (California: Feinstein, Pelosi, Boxer, et al) — there would be no way to stop it. Democrat handouts would continue to “buy” votes from the non-producing poor and immigrants which flood the blue states, and the Middle Class across America would continue to pay for it.
May 31st, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Respectfully, your analysis is flawed.
Jack, your analysis is flawed. If we have a direct election of the President, we eliminate the division of powers between state and federal interests. It would be equivalent to eliminating the senate, the branch of the legislature that provides influence to small states.
Read the report. There are safe states and there are swing states. Some safe states are large, and some swing states are small. What determines whether a state gets “listened to” is its degree of competitiveness at election time. the number of swing states is steadily declining. Youth turnout is steadily declining. The number of voters who see ads and get campaign visits is steadily declining. In other words, the number of votes a candidate must campaign for is steadily declining. And the sizes of their home states don’t matter. The NPV plan will turn the trend around and make sure everyone gets listened to, visited, media-blitzed - because every vote will count again.
JT, you hit the nail on the head. It would have given the election to Gore in 2000, and a much larger majority to Bush in 2004. Neither of those situations accurately represents the citizenry of our country. Do, however, recognize that Other states including Colorado and Louisiana are signed on to this unconstitutional ‘interstate compact’.
The compact is constitutional, one. Insisting on the contrary won’t make it true.
Two, both of those situations accurately represent the citizens of this country. How is the loser of the popular vote representative of the majority? How is a small EC majority representative of a popular majority that is much larger?
Frankly you’re not making sense on this last count.
May 31st, 2006 at 2:32 pm
I should note that I approached this idea and the electoral college in terms of what seems the most “fair” overall to me, not which system I think would best further my own personal agendas.
I don’t think population density of a state necessarily determines “blueness” or “redness.” Small blue states have more power than largely populated red states in terms of voting power and representation per citizen, for instance (2 Senators representing fewer people).
My biggest concern was that if California adopted such a policy and many other states did not, it would give the rest of the country more say in determining how our electoral votes go, and us as a statewide voting block less say.
The Bill states:
“This compact would only become effective if states cumulatively
possessing a majority of the total electoral votes have ratified the
compact.”
To me, this is certainly not enough. At the very least, such a compact should only take effect if all 50 states ratify such a compact. If all states agree with what would basically be a scrapping of the electoral college, then so be it. If not, you end up with a mixed system, which seems to put things in a worse, more confusing, more unbalanced situation.
And why go about this in a way that just undermines the Constitution? Why not instead work about amending the Constitution if one feels the EC is unfair or out-of-date? The aim is basically the same, but an amendment would be more honest way of going about it.
May 31st, 2006 at 6:20 pm
[W]hy go about this in a way that just undermines the Constitution? Why not instead work about amending the Constitution if one feels the EC is unfair or out-of-date? The aim is basically the same, but an amendment would be more honest way of going about it.
Enough said. JT nails it again.
June 1st, 2006 at 8:04 am
Umberg stated, - (From the ‘basic premise/ContraCosta Times’ link above) - “When you’re in first grade, if the person who got the second-most votes became class leader, the kids would recognize that this is not a fair system,”
Is this man so ignorant that he does not realize there is a difference between a grade school popularity contest and the election of the President of the United States?
Personal message to Tom Umberg. Get over it! Life is full of unfairness.
As stated by California Conservative in #5 comment above the electoral college was actually designed to help keep things more fair. We do not NOW have one segment of the population running roughshod over the other segments. Would AR2948 change this?
Should we take the chance that it would?
Why is it the liberals say yes? Perhaps because they want to run roughshod over other segments of the population!
-(:-P
September 6th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
[...] Considering that Article I section 10 of the Constitution expressly forbids “interstate compacts”, the bill will likely be found unconstitutional, even if Gov. Schwarzenegger decides to affix his signature to it. Yet, constitutionality aside, this Bill, apparently, represents Assemblyman Umberg’s failure to understand the importance of the Electoral College. As I stated in April, before passage of the bill: “It’s an effort to make California relevant again in presidential elections,” Umberg said, clearly unaware of the influence California’s 55 Electoral votes have when it comes to Presidential elections, and clearly disregarding the fact that California’s interests, as determined by state election results would be superceded by national voting outcomes. This should be obvious, considering the goals of AB2948, so I can only assume that Assemblyman Umberg is being misleading in his statements. [...]
January 6th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Unsecured loans to consolidate debt….
Unsecured loans to consolidate debt. Consolidate debt loans. Loans to consolidate personal debt….