Though many may have heard little about it, there's a movement among a number of states to go around the U.S. Constitution and the electoral college system established by our forefathers for the election of the president (and vice president) and elect candidates to the highest executive office by popular vote.
Earlier this month, New York became the 10th state to sign on to an interstate compact to elect the president by national popular vote. With the addition of New York's electors, the total number of electors under an "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote" is now 165, just 105 electors short of the number needed to undo the Constitutional provision and see to it that the president is elected by popular vote rather than through the electoral college as required by the Constitution.
Other states opting to be in the compact include New Jersey, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, California and Rhode Island. Notice that you don't see rural and less populous states in the list. However, the Arkansas House has already, in the past, passed a bill to adopt the "Agreement Among the States...." And though the Arkansas measure failed, it is being considered by legislatures in Arizona, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.
What the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote" essentially does is commit the electors of compact states to the presidential candidate with the national popular vote regardless of the voters' choice for president within the state.
Many might ask what's wrong with that, but they fail to see how the change could impact their own vote or the votes of their own state.
The electoral college system was put in place as a compromise between those who would have elected the president by popular vote and those who felt the office should be filled by a vote of Congress. Instead of filling the top office in the land by simple majority rule or by a vote of the full Congress, each state certifies an allotted number of electors (equal to the number of representatives and senators in Congress, with the District of Columbia appointed three) to represent the state and cast the state's votes for president and vice president. Each state certifies its electors based on the vote of the people within that state. The presidential candidate with a majority of electoral votes -- 270 or more -- wins the election.
What's wrong with getting around the Constitutional provision for presidential elections? A number of things:
• First and foremost is that it would give populous states even more control over who is elected president and would often nullify the votes of rural America and less populous states. And, if enough states sign the compact to determine the certification of 270 electors, the votes of states are essentially nullified. In compact states, a candidate could potentially win overwhelmingly and still not receive a single vote of the state's electors. And if compact states control a minimum of 270 electors, the electoral votes of all other states would essentially be meaningless. Thus, smaller states like Arkansas, with only six electoral votes, would have little say in presidential elections because the process would be determined by the votes of the masses in high-population regions.
• Secondly, it is an agreement to bypass the Constitution. Instead of going through the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, which have essential roles in making changes in the Constitution assigned in Article V, the Congress isn't even consulted. In effect, it also changes the Constitution without the three-fourths state consent required and potentially could allow as few as 11 states make the remaining 39 bend to their choice for president. It violates the Compact Clause and goes against the Supreme Court decision in New York v. United States (1992) in which the Supreme Court instructed that "(a) departure from the Constitution's plan for the intergovernmental allocation of authority cannot be ratified by the 'consent' of state officials" because "the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals."
• And, finally, though a host of other reasons could be invoked, it's just plain dishonest. If people wish to elect the president by popular vote, the right way to make the change would be through an amendment to the Constitution and not by skirting its provisions.
Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be contacted by email at [email protected].
Editorial on 05/28/2014