Extortion? Puh-leeze.

Filed in National by on June 4, 2012

First it was plagiarism, now it’s extortion. Mike Katz may be a doctor but, judging by the way he throws overheated charges around, he’s sure no lawyer.

And he looks less and less like a progressive all the time. Which, perhaps, is what he wants in his R district, but it’s not something I, for one, need. Nor do progressives.

In fact, he is using his claim of ‘political extortion’ to justify his burial of National Popular Vote legislation in his Senate Elections Committee. Might I point out that Katz sought the office of President Pro Tempore on a promise of not ‘desk-drawering’ legislation, which is exactly what he’s done? HB 55(D. E. Williams) passed the House on June 7, 2011. President Pro-Tem Tony DeLuca assigned the bill to the Senate Administrative Services/Elections Committee, which certainly appears to be the correct committee, on June 8, 2011.  It has sat there for almost a year now, even though three committee members, Senators Blevins, Marshall, and Sokola, support its release from committee. Katz has joined two Rethugs, Senators Booth and Lawson, in keeping HB 55 bottled up in committee.

During that year, advocates for the National Popular Vote movement have sought to get Katz to move on the bill with no success. Which led to what Katz considers political extortion, a perceived threat that an ad would be aired criticizing Katz’ intransigence on this bill. And, indeed, an ad has been created. From the ad copy:

In the ad, a man with a deep voice intones: “State Senator Mike Katz campaigned on a promise not to bottle up bills in committees. Now he’s blocking a bill guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who get the most votes from going to the Senate floor.”

Uh, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the truth? There is no distortion of Katz’ position here, it states it quite accurately. Katz, of course, has taken this as an example of the moneyed special interests in  politics:

Katz, a Democrat who has represented the Greenville area since 2009, said he now considers the bill “corrupted” and won’t take any further action on it. He is reporting what he considers corrupt tactics to the Delaware Attorney General’s Office.“I don’t think the public realizes how special interests spend money to intimidate legislators,” said Katz, an anesthesiologist by profession. The popular-vote groups “have a profound misunderstanding of why I’m serving. I’m not going to be intimidated or coerced into doing something I don’t think is right.”

I call bullshit on Katz. You’ve sat on that bill for a year, you now merely have the pretext to do what you’ve been doing all along: nothing. ‘Special interests’? Uh, we’re not talking the Koch Brothers here despite Cris Barrish’s misleading inference of  the National Popular Vote movement being formed in 2005 by ‘two millionaire businessmen’. Sure makes it sound sinister, doesn’t it? A little more information, Cris? This is a national popular movement, not something conjured up by those seeking to thwart democracy at every turn, like Turd Blossom and the Koch Brothers. So stop enabling Katz’ false equivalency. And $5000 for the ad? How is someone who has raised something like $200,000 supposed to counteract that?

Oh, and Senator Katz? While you’re stroking your chin and contemplating this “complex and fascinating issue” (your words), states across the country, including electoral behemoths Florida and Pennsylvania, are conjuring up ways to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters. And the only research you need to find that out is to read the papers. Oh, BTW, you claim that this issue “requires more research”. What, exactly, have you been doing for the past year while that bill sat in your committee? Apparently not doing research. You pointedly did not meet with proponents of this bill until the last couple of weeks, and then you turned that into an excuse to go all righteously indignant on its supporters. I don’t agree with their tactics, but I sure as hell can understand their frustration at such an alleged ‘progressive’ stonewalling progress with no reasonable explanation for the stonewalling.

So, please allow me to conclude this piece with an ad of my own. To make you feel at home, Senator, I’ll even plagiarize a portion of it from the ‘Katz Promised’ ad:

“State Senator Mike Katz campaigned on a promise not to bottle up bills in committees. Now he’s blocking a bill guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who get the most votes from going to the Senate floor.”

“While Katz refuses to allow a vote on the National Popular Vote, states across this country are passing laws to disenfranchise voters and are trying to steal yet another presidential election through the Electoral College.”

“Call Senator Katz at (302) 577-8744, and politely ask him to honor the basic democratic principle of ‘one person, one vote’ by allowing HB 55 to be considered before the Senate.”


Tags: , , ,

About the Author ()

Comments (68)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. SussexWatcher says:

    That’s politics, and Katz and the other legislators who spoke out have just exposed themselves as a bunch of whining crybabies. “He’s going to say bad things about me!! Wwwaaaaahhhhhh!!!”

  2. Linda says:

    “The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that’s also a hypocrite!”

    Quote by Tennessee Williams

    Pretty much sums my thoughts on this issue . . .

  3. Katz is right on this issue and I applaud him.

  4. John Young says:

    State Senator Mike Katz campaigned on a promise not to bottle up bills in committees. Now he’s blocking a bill guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who get the most votes from going to the Senate floor

    Well it does leave out the fact that it would give Delaware’s 3 electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most votes in the nation, regardless of the Delaware totals (i.e. if Romney won DE, but the nation votes Obama, then DE’s 3 votes go to Obama, and VICE-VERSA)

    This may favor chasing votes in large cities as opposed to rural America, BUT it may also force candidates to stump more places for more votes because now it won’t be about just losing or winning, but now by how much.

    That said, the fact in the ad is a bit “truthy” to me.

  5. John Young says:

    Also, this thread is about to be infected by robot (non-Delaware) trolls in favor of NPV, mark it.

  6. I believe it is profoundly different to not hold a hearing and not give a bill an opportunity to get votes or the bill just not having enough support to get out of committee. If every bill should go to the floor, abolish committees and work 600 bills. I think that is silly. He is not single handily blocking the bill. He is one of three who oppose it. They just don’t have the votes.

    I don’t disagree with you that Katz whining to the AG is unseemly and petty. That disturbs me. I also see the NPV group as whining as well by distorting what really happened.

  7. The Electoral College, as being abused by the Rethugs, is merely an invitation to steal an election, through chicanery. Hard to do that nationally with a comprehensive popular vote.

    Hey, at least one Presidential election has recently been stolen, perhaps two, and Rethugs throughout the country are passing laws to disenfranchise more than enough legitimate voters to steal at least one more as long as the Electoral College is in effect.

    Plus, regardless of one’s position on this, Katz is not even permitting this debate to happen in the Senate. No wonder Rethug David likes it.

  8. PI says:

    I really don’t care whether Mike Katz is in favor of the legislation. He can vote against it if he doesn’t like it. What I do care about is the fact that he is not allowing my Legislator’s voice to be heard on the bill because he’s holding it hostage. Mike is definitely being a hypocrite and needs to be called out on it.

    Good expose’ El Som!

  9. kavips says:

    Katz is correct for taking exercising his judgment as he sees fit. He certainly has the right to go back on his pledge, if he feels it is in the better interest of all constituents.

    The Advocacy Group, also is equally correct for exercising their threat, as they see fit. They are advocating for a certain position. They have money, and there is no law against placing an ad to advocate one’s position…

    El Som is correct for stating his side, as he sees fit….. He wants a more progressive government and this bill could move forward in that direction…

    Everyone has a view.. Who then is actually looking at what the passage of this bill could actually create?…

    Yep,… that’s who….

  10. E.S. is spewing b. s. Did you not just lecture Senator Katz on his obviously overheated extortion line? Republicans did not steal any elections for President. In 2000, Florida was won by Bush no matter how hard the Democrats tried to recount and find votes. Virtually every independent recount since proves the same results.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

  11. Delaware Dem says:

    I personally oppose NPV. But Katz promised not to bottle up bills in committee, and he should stick to that promise. And if he does not, then he deserves to be criticized.

    The bill deserves a vote in committee. Katz is free to vote against the bill.

  12. Dana Garrett says:

    I’m wondering more and more about how we ever got into the situation where in a so-called “representative” democracy we allowed lawmakers to withhold legislation from consideration and, yes, however outrageous a piece of legislation might be. It seems this is how power brokers both grant democracy to a people and then find ways to subvert it and take it back. I say let all legislation get an up or down vote even the most ridiculous legislation and let the elected legislators who propose and vote for absurd legislation suffer the exposure and electoral consequences that their support brings.

  13. Linda says:

    I agree Dana I am sick and tired of this desk drawer crap. It pisses me off to see that it didn’t take long for Katz to become DeLuca and that is a sad commentary on the state of our representative process in Delaware . . .

  14. liberalgeek says:

    I am not a fan of NPV, but the bill should be brought up for at least a committee vote.

  15. reality check says:

    All bills, once assigned to committee, should have a fair hearing and vote to release or not. The committee is the place to have the public input and both sides of the issue expressed. Bills that have already passed one chamber should absolutely get consideration for release so that the public may witness and record how their Rep. or Sen. votes on the issue. PI is correct. The committee process is not a place to shelter the elected officials from accounting for their own actions. If the bill passes both chambers then the Governor can choose to veto it but his decision will have to be made publicly. It is called open, representative democracy with checks and balances included and if you can’t stand the heat take your pots and pans with you when you leave the Kitchen. But please leave the kitchen.

  16. auntie dem says:

    Yeah kavips. You and Senator Katz are right about this.

  17. John Manifold says:

    The Electoral College is an outdated anomaly. It effectively disenfranchises most of the country.

    Kavips’ constitutional objection has no basis. States, under current law, can enact legislation to give their electoral votes to the guy with the cutest haircut, or who is most closely related to the governor. The Florida legislature threatened to do so in November 2000.

    “There was a system that we could follow, and say by the rules enacted, George Bush should be president…”

    Which is why “the rules” need to be updated.

  18. Will McVay says:

    Isn’t there a process for circumventing the committee when the chair won’t even schedule a bill for a hearing? I understand not abusing this process if a bill is being given a fair hearing by the committee it is assigned to, but if a committee is just sitting on its hands, can’t there be a motion to suspend the rules and debate/vote on the bill anyway? Shouldn’t someone be doing that every day, even if they lose, to at least motivate the committee chair to hold a hearing?

  19. Josh says:

    I oppose personally NPV, I am one of SEN Katz Constituents. I was upset when he voted against the minimum wage however, it passed anyways. I think our SD is opposed NPV and that’s why it’s bottled up. I agree with others that SEN Katz, is right on this.

  20. Will McVay says:

    Then he should not support releasing it from the committee. It should still have a hearing. I don’t support it either, but at least the committee it was assigned to should have the chance to discuss that and hear from the public.

  21. TNJ says:

    The NPV bill did have a full hearing. 6 people on the committee. 3 chose, thus far, to vote it out. A simple majority is required to vote it out of committee. The desk drawer veto refers to a bill being placed “in the desk drawer” and not having the opportunity to have a public hearing. The NPV did have a full public hearing. Many bills in the Senate receive a public hearing, but do not receive enough votes to vote it out of committee. In addition, there are bills in the Senate that are assigned to committees, and do not receive a hearing….these are the bills that are being “desk drawer vetoed”.

  22. Will McVay says:

    You know, I thought I remembered being at that hearing…I just didn’t see any record of it on the Legislative website. I might have missed it. Thanks for the correction.

    I that case, you can beef with Katz about his position on the bill, but the ad would seem to be inaccurate.

  23. Who is the sissy hiding behind the TNJ moniker? I mean really, sir or madam, if you’re going to use that pseudonym, you should just come clean and expose yourself.

    Cris Barrish? I hope not. I used to respect that guy.

  24. kavips says:

    Ok, from what I can see, this is where this thread appears to be going. We have on one side, a group that is against the bottling up of this piece of legislation, even knowing it is a bad piece of legislation, and we have on the other side, a group saying sometimes, based on the protections specifically set in place for the minority, that sort of stuff, such as preventing a vote, has to happen…

    Interestingly there seems to be a consensus that this legislation is not really that good for us, or really good for America. I guess one can, if pushed, compare it to a spousal tiff, where in the heat of the moment it makes sense to throw it all away and walk out the door. But, when you look later at what you threw away, and over what? That idea wasn’t such a great one after all.. For better or worse, many of us keep the relationship together… This decision is kinda like that. It sort of makes sense to abandon a centuries old practice, but to change to something so drastic, and to do it so quickly, might in the future, make our lives somewhat worse… Maybe much worse…

    Right now, the name escapes me, but some of you old timers may remember the name of that John Wayne movie, where a dark, short cropped female has riled a mob out of the local residents, and they gather at John Wayne’s house to hang the guy he is protecting, and he stands his ground, eventually causing the crowd to disperse, and we find as the plot twists, that it was that female who turns out to be the guilty one, not the one she was framing and trying to lynch… The point was, my gosh, what would have happened if John Wayne had not stepped in. That movie made an impression on me, and in a way, I think we can use it to give Katz a way out…

    Yes, he needs to stall for time, until a debate, a real one that opens all doors and looks behind them, takes place among all Delawareans on this issue. Currently there is a mob rushing through this legislation. “Do it now, do it now, do it now”… Katz is right not to cave in. Something this drastic, this important, needs to be debated. So, what he needs to do, is set a date next legislature session, because like Blue Water Wind, this complex issue is too big. There is no way we can completely grasp, or even debate this complex issue, in less than the month left of Delaware’s General Assembly…

    Most bills are passed without most of those voting knowing any of its inner workings. “Oh, if it came from Venables, it must be good, I’ll vote yes.” We cannot do that here on this one.

    If Katz has to say: “Look, I made a promise, and it turns out, I was wrong. I wish I could have seen this coming, but I had no way of knowing something like this was capable of making its presence known, especially in little ole Delaware’s General Assembly. I agree in principal with what I stated as a campaigner, that bills should be put to a vote, but this bill, would ruin America if I stuck too, and followed my campaign promise to the tee, and just let it become law… I’m sorry, I just can’t do that. Unlike those who came before and bottled up legislation, session after session, I promise I will hold a hearing and the vote next legislative session, and I promise that the hearing will be posted long in advance, allowing plenty of time for both sides to buttonhole legislators with both sets of facts, but at least then, when we finally do have our vote, it will be a vote by “informed” legislators, not a “yea or nay” voted in blindly, based on what “they think” they are told that people want.

    I see no problem with such a tack. I think that is fair… And I think that is a good compromise between his values, his promise, and our future…

  25. Will McVay says:

    His promise was to schedule bills for a hearing. He did. He upheld his promise. He didn’t promise to release everything from committee.

  26. Well, kavips, that’s sure not where I’m coming from. As registration figures and voting patterns get worse for the Rethugs, they have resorted to trying to steal elections, aided by highly-partisan SOS’ like that Kathleen Harris and that Ohio Blackwell guy. They may have succeeded in both 2000 and 2004.

    Now we see leaders in key electoral states like Florida and PA, states where both the Governor and legislatures are controlled by the R’s, seeking to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters through phony ‘election reform’ tactics, even though they can’t demonstrate any voter fraud in their states.

    This makes a mockery out of the notion of a participatory democracy, and uses the arcane Electoral College to try to craft an ill-gotten triumph at the possible expense of the popular will of the people. How can you best measure the popular will of the people? One person, one vote.

    And here in Delaware you’ve got Mike Katz claiming that he’s leading the fight against big money in politics by…killing a Senate vote on the concept of one person, one vote. The big money? Apparently some guy with a beard from Vermont who may or may not throw around the princely sum of $5000 to try to get Katz to release the bill from committee. NOT Karl Rove, NOT the Koch Brothers, who pour billions into stealing elections. But some guy with a beard from Vermont with $5K at his disposal.

    I respect your perspective and generally the perspective of our respondents, but I really think some of you (not Rethug Dave or Will McVay) need to reexamine just what’s going on here. And then ask yourselves, is some possible teensy tiny parochial advantage to Delaware worth throwing out participatory democracy at the presidential level? I think the answer is no, and I don’t think it’s even close.

  27. kavips says:

    Today is Tuesday so I know El Som is short on time. Perhaps on air you can respond?

    Here’s where we agree.. 1) 2000 and 2004. 2) Florida and PA forcing ID’s on voters.

    I don’t think the Electoral College makes any more mockery of our elections system, than say the forced disenfranchising of our Southern Blacks from voting, or any non-Irish immigrant in 19th Century New York, or any backwoods liberal hippy from voting in a WV precinct.. There as always been the human tendency to hang on to power, and when it starts slipping away, to use any means necessary to keep it.

    If we move to one person, one vote, I’m sure before long, someone will find a way to do the same within that system. And as most bloggers know from our use with computers today, fraud is extremely easy. You don’t have to be there in person to achieve it!

    I know it is easy to get swept up in emotions. But what if the shoes were reversed. What if every election we had a Christine O’Donnell ride a wave of manipulated popular support, and sweep into office, without a clue of what was in the Constitution? If we’d had the misfortune of having dependable Karen W. Stewart as the shill to run against Castle instead of the honorable Chris Coons, … our Senator could very well be Christine O’Donnell right now. In fact, the entire Tea Party got swept in, without anyone really saying, “who are these guys?” And we’ve had two years of hell…

    Of course that is not presidential. But the pattern is there, and there needs to be a really strong fear that this sort of thing could quite easily happen. The French Revolution comes to mind. Or Nickolas Lenin. Or Adolf Hitler.

    So, attack Big Money. (Really all you have to do is tax it).. I don’t think changing the Constitution is the proper method to realign the balance of people versus capitalism in our political system.

    I anticipate your broadcast… 🙂 I would encourage everyone out there to listen. This one will be huge.

  28. Dave says:

    Once upon a time things were simpler and once upon a time there weren’t 300,000,000 people in the nation.

    But now that we are at that point, isn’t really time for automatic voter registration and issuance of identification that is accepted at least in the state of residence if not the nation? Wouldn’t this resolve these kinds of issues?

    My Mom was born in a time when birth certificates were not almost automatic. She doesn’t have a birth certificate and the county in which she was born has no record of her birth. Well she’s eighty some-odd years old. Her need for a birth certificate at this point is virtualy non-existent since she has other forms of identification. So what was not uncommon way back when is very uncommon now.

    It is true that if we required some form of positive identification today, not everyone would have it, but there is nothing wrong with starting today and transitioning over a period of time. Why is it we can’t get past this. Of course there is no widespread voter fraud, but disregarding that, why isn’t there automatic registration that is tied directly to a semi-automatic identification process? Or donor status; residency; etc?

    I have chips implanted in my 4 legged members of my family. If I had small children today, I would be asking myself if I shouldn’t do the same for them rather than relying on Amber alerts. I probably wouldn’t do that or if I did I would want an automatic shutoff once they reached the age at which they were responsible for themselves. Still, sometimes I wonder why we insist on living with chad. Sure computers make mistakes, but I bet it’s a lot fewer than people mistakes.

  29. Kavips, yes, we’ll be discussing this topic today.

    I’d make this point to you. Emotion and logic are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I’d argue that the emotion (read ‘anger’) that I express comes directly out of how I logically view something.

    When you write that “I don’t think the Electoral College makes any more mockery of our elections system, than say the forced disenfranchising of our Southern Blacks from voting, or any non-Irish immigrant in 19th Century New York, or any backwoods liberal hippy from voting in a WV precinct…”, I think you prove my point. All of those things are/were bad, and other than the Electoral College, all have been addressed and/or continue to be addressed. So, why not the Electoral College?

    You also claim that, “If we move to one person, one vote, I’m sure before long, someone will find a way to do the same within that system.” If they do, then we’ll have to address it, won’t we? Still not a reason to retain a system that makes it pretty damn easy to steal elections.

    Oh, and keep in mind that the issue in Ohio in 2004 stemmed from very suspicious readings from election machines in certain key precincts, and that the Secretary of State, an R, ran that election, and had close ties to the manufacturer of those machines. Yet one more example of how one-person one-vote would make it far more difficult to steal an election.

  30. mvymvy says:

    Some history of the National Popular Vote bill in Delaware.

    On June 7, 2011, the Delaware House of Representatives approved the National Popular Vote bill.

    In February, 2011, Representatives Dennis E. Williams, Melanie George, and John Kowalko and Senators Margaret Rose Henry, Michael Katz, and Karen Peterson introduced the National Popular Vote bill (HB 55) in Delaware.

    On June 24, 2009, the Delaware House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill (HB 198 Status of HB 198) by a 23-12 vote. The Delaware House is the 29th state legislative chamber in the country to pass the National Popular Vote bill.

    On June 4, 2009, Representatives Dennis E. Williams and Senator Michael S. Katz introduced the National Popular Vote bill, with additional sponsorship from Representatives E. Bradford Bennett, Gerald L. Brady, S. Quinton Johnson, and John A. Kowalko.

    On January 15, 2007, Delaware Senator Robert L. Venables announced that he was planning to introduce the National Popular Vote bill into Delaware Legislature for the 2007 session.

  31. mvymvy says:

    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%.

    Most Americans don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it’s wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The 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

  32. mvymvy says:

    kavips:
    National Popular Vote would not change the Constitution.

    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.

    The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures 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.

    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.

    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.

    States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. 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.

    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.

    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.

  33. mvymvy says:

    Kavips:
    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.

  34. mvymvy says:

    Kavips:
    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

    National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

    The closest popular-vote election in American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

    Which system offers voter suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

  35. mvymvy says:

    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 Delaware.

    Candidates 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, Delaware, 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%, Delaware –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. On June 7, 2011 and June 24, 2009, the Delaware House of Representatives approved the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by three jurisdictions.

    Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections– NH, NM, and NV. They got high priority attention from candidates, like the rest of the handful of battleground states do.

  36. mvymvy says:

    With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
    The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
    Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

    If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

    A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

    The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

  37. SussexWatcher says:

    Can someone point me to the poll in which 75 percent of Delawareans support this thing?

  38. Geezer says:

    I don’t know who the shill is, but if you want to change the Constitution, go ahead and amend it. I agree that the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness, but this is the wrong way to go about fixing it. If the support for this is as overwhelming as you claim, it shouldn’t be too tough.

  39. mvymvy says:

    National Popular Vote would not change the Constitution.

    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.

    The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.

    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.

    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.

    States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. 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, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. 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.

  40. Geezer says:

    blah, blah blah, blah blah. As I said, if the public support for it were as you claim, an amendment would pass easily. The fact that you choose not to go that route shows that you don’t, in fact, believe the propaganda you spout.

  41. Will McVay says:

    If the support was that overwhelming, then this bill being held by the same senate committee last session would have gotten some incumbents un-elected and we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.

  42. mvymvy says:

    The U.S. Constitution says “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 normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives “exclusive” and “plenary” control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.

    Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action.

    National Popular Vote doesn’t seek an amendment. An amendment is not needed to guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

    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.

  43. Will McVay says:

    True enough, but without a federal, constitutional process, you could have a single state whose government suppresses the popular votes of a certain constituency and influences the national popular vote without federal intervention or the ability of other states to check those excesses. Similarly, a state could loosen its voting restrictions to let 5 year olds vote to pad their numbers. All of that would fall under the same “exclusive” and “plenary” authority to allocate their EC delegates as they see fit. The national popular vote that is currently tabulated is not an official government figure, but a media fiction created by adding apples to oranges, tallying the popular votes of each state and adding them together.

    You also didn’t address how popular it really is if three successive GA’s have not-passed it without repercussions.

  44. kavips says:

    With all due respect, I used to be a supporter of this… Sure, I thought. We’ve grown past the need for an electoral college. I think it was Ohio that caused me to turn that way…

    But in the years since, as El Som points out, we’ve learned a lot. We learned that Ohio probably didn’t vote Republican in 2004. We learned that New Hampshire, probably didn’t vote Clinton in 2008. (primary). Suddenly, the great honesty of digital data was compromised.

    I certainly don’t want to fault El Som, who has been the beater of the drum on this. The motives are clear and perhaps honorable. However, the more i read of what this bill will actually do, the more it stinks.

    In fact, actually reading the arguments for a second time, opens a lot of possibilities, so that this bill instead of being the white knight upon a steed coming to rescue us,… actually seems more and more like a trick to sneak by us which will eventually be used to throw future elections, It appears to be more of a Trojan Horse, than a gift of acquiescence…

    The boat, or this bill we are talking about, has a lot of holes. One certainly doesn’t shove out to sea in a boat with lots of holes…

    I was open minded when this first began. But the more I read into what this bill will do, the more it looks like one person, one vote, is a very bad idea.

    I wish one of you supporters could write a piece explaining just why, it is a good bill?

    Take these negative issues and diffuse them.

    Loss of Accountability
    Diminishing Integrity
    Bypassing the Constitution
    Loss of Trust in the Election Process
    Loss of Transparency
    Believability of results….

    Even better, Mitt Romney defeats Obama by a popular vote of 62,000,000 to 59,000,000. (of course there is no winner until Hawaii gets counted) We all wake up and go, huh? Now… under your system: prove it is real.

  45. mvymvy says:

    The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways. The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and preserves state control of elections and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President.

    There is nothing incompatible between differences in state election laws and the concept of a national popular vote for President. That was certainly the mainstream view when the U.S. House of Representatives in 1969 voted for a national popular vote, retaining state control over elections, by a 338–70 margin .

    It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, then-Senator Bob Dole, and then-Senator Walter Mondale.

    The American Bar Association also endorsed it.

    It provided that the popular-vote count from each state would be added up to obtain the nationwide total for each candidate. The National Popular Vote compact does the same.

    Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are comingled and simply added together, irrespective of the fact that the electoral-vote outcome from each state was affected by differences in state policies, including voter registration, ex-felon voting, hours of voting, amount and nature of advance voting, and voter identification requirements.

    Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote compact, all of the people of the United States are impacted by the different election policies of the states. Everyone in the United States is affected by the division of electoral votes generated by each state. The procedures governing presidential elections in a closely divided battleground state (e.g., Florida and Ohio) can affect, and indeed have affected, the ultimate outcome of national elections.

    For example, the 2000 Certificate of Ascertainment (required by federal law) from the state of Florida reported 2,912,790 popular votes for George W. Bush and 2,912,253 popular vote for Al Gore, and also reported 25 electoral votes for George W. Bush and 0 electoral votes for Al Gore. That 25–0 division of the electoral votes from Florida determined the outcome of the national election just as a particular division of the popular vote from a particular state might decisively affect the national outcome in some future election under the National Popular Vote compact.

    The 1969 endorsement by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, then-Senator Bob Dole, and then-Senator Walter Mondale, and The American Bar Association and, more importantly, the current system also accepts the differences among states.

  46. mvymvy says:

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

    National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

    The closest popular-vote election in American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

    Which system offers voter suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

  47. mvymvy says:

    The national popular vote IS certainly an official government figure, created by adding the popular votes of each state and adding them together.

    Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.

    The process is explained at archives.gov slash federal-register slash electoral-college slash state_responsibilities.html

  48. mvymvy says:

    Again.

    The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law.

    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.

    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.

    Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation’s first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

    In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

    In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the 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, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

    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.

  49. mvymvy says:

    Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Existing federal law (the “safe harbor” provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state’s “final determination” of its presidential election returns is “conclusive”(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).

    The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.

  50. Geezer says:

    For your sake, I hope they’re paying you by the word.

  51. dogbert32 says:

    It’s pretty amazing how misunderstood the NPV is. Change the Constitution? “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors.” That’s what the Constitution says, and that would not be changed by the NPV. The Constitution is not being changed at all; indeed, the NPV is merely an act by the states’ Legislatures exercising their constitutionally delegated authority to decide how to appoint Electors. Anyone who says that the Constitution is being changed is just plain wrong (and clearly has not read the Constitution.) But then again, one of those people, Geezer, also made the statement: “As I said, if the public support for it were as you claim, an amendment would pass easily.” Would pass easily? You clearly know as little about the political process as you do about the text of the Constitution. (I’m sure kavips made even stupider comments than Geezer’s, but kavips’s immense stupidity prevented me from even reading his posts.)

    And mvymvy, I doubt many people are interested in reading your book that you seem to be composing with your posts. Try making a few pointed comments if you actually think you have something worth saying and being read.

    Oh, and Katz seems like a hypocritical jerk. He was never a progressive. (I mean, come on, he has actually argued that legislators should not receive any income. So that only incredibly wealthy people like him can be in office?)

  52. John Young says:

    @ John Young said: Also, this thread is about to be infected by robot (non-Delaware) trolls in favor of NPV, mark it.

    and along came mvymvy right on cue. The NPV proponents use an algorithm to search for threads all over the country,. If you mention NPV, they troll in and chat it up.

    they are soulless ideologues who wish to undue the traditions of America. Delaware’s votes should earn its electors to then say who Delaware wishes to support.

  53. Maybe when soulless ideologues, funded by the Koch Brothers, steal the presidential election through voter suppression in Florida or elsewhere, you’ll change your tune.

  54. dogbert32 says:

    Delaware’s 3 electoral votes don’t matter, John Young. At least with NPV, my vote could have a real effect on the national outcome.

    Also, I’m pretty sure that “traditions of America” argument is one of the stupidest ones that can be made. It was the same argument that people used to oppose things such as civil rights, women’s rights, and workers’ rights. It’s just an empty statement that merely adheres to whatever perceptions are held by the user. (Also, the proper word is “undo,” although I do believe that any deference given to something like the Electoral College system merely because it is part of the “traditions of America” is undue, and pretty silly).

  55. dogbert32 says:

    @ El Somnambulo: you forgot the word “again”

  56. John Young says:

    Bad bill. Going to lose.

  57. C’mon, John. Got nothing better than that?

  58. John Young says:

    Village Democrats in New York: http://ctvoterscount.org/CTVCdata/12/04/VIDResolution20120417.pdf

    Again, I agree.

  59. John Young says:

    Village Independent Democrats
    26 Perry Street
    N ew York, N Y 10014

    April 17, 2012
    Dear Governor Andrew Cuomo,
    The Village Independent Democrats OPPOSES participation by New
    York State in the initiative called National Popular Vote (NPV), an ostensible
    a work-around related to the Electoral College.
    NPV involves the different states passing state laws to agree to a
    contract that the passing states hold in common, that they will give their
    electoral votes to the presidential candidate who appears to receive the most
    popular votes nationwide
    We urge our State Assembly and State Senate to vote AGAINST any
    legislation approving NPV because:
    · NPV could force New York to give its electoral votes to candidates not
    chosen by New York State voters.
    · NPV could result in the allocation of New York’s electoral votes being
    controlled by vote tampering, as well as innocent tallying errors, in states
    with poorly designed and less secure electronic voting equipment.
    New York State worked for four years to force vendors of electronic
    voting equipment to produce secure machines and software that do not have
    obvious flaws that would cause errors and enable vote tampering. New York
    State is the only state that required electronic voting equipment to pass tests
    performed by a credible, independent testing lab prior to purchase.
    Computer scientists and election integrity activists have publicized for
    years the flaws in the electronic voting equipment used today in other states.
    Other states have minimal if any auditing. In several states the Secretary of
    State can simply announce tallies with no evidence behind them.
    In addition to problems with accurate reporting of vote tallies in other
    states, efforts in some states to suppress the popular vote, especially with
    excessive voter ID requirements, could affect New York’s electoral votes under an NPV arrangement.

  60. John Young says:

    From Gans: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/curtis-gans/national-popular-vote_b_1189390.html

    As the National Popular Vote (NPV) movement steps up its effort to impose a direct election for president, attempting to enlist states with a sufficient number of electors to constitute a majority (268) and to bind them to the winner of the national popular vote, those states considering the proposal might first reflect on the nightmare aftermath of the 2000 presidential election.

    Because there was a difference of less than 1,000 tabulated votes between George W. Bush and Al Gore in one state, Florida, the nation watched as 6 million votes were recounted by machine, several hundred thousand were recounted by hand in counties with differing recount standards, partisan litigators fought each other in state and federal courts, the secretary of state backed by the majority of state legislators (all Republicans) warred with the state’s majority Democratic judiciary — until 37 days after the election the U.S. Supreme Court, in a bitterly controversial 5-4 decision effectively declared Bush the winner.

    That nightmare may seem like a pleasant dream if NPV has its way. For under its plan, the next time the U.S. has very close national vote, a recount would not be of six million votes in one state but of more than 130 million votes in all states and the District of Columbia, all with their own rules for conducting a recount.

    The horror of a potential national recount is only one of the dangers direct presidential elections poses. Among the others:

    • By its very size and scope, a national direct election will lead to nothing more than a national media campaign, which would propel the parties’ media consultants to inflict upon the entire nation what has been heretofore limited to the so-called battleground states: an ever-escalating, distorted arms race of tit-for-tat unanswerable attack advertising polluting the airwaves, denigrating every candidate and eroding citizen faith in their leaders and the political process as a whole.

    • Because a direct election would be, by definition, national and resource allocation would be overwhelmingly dominated by paid television advertising, there would be little impetus for grass-roots activity. That, in turn, would likely diminish voter turnout.

    • Similarly, because a national campaign mandates a national message, there would also be a smaller incentive for coalition-building or taking into account the characteristics, needs and desires of citizens in differing states and regions.

    • NPV supporters claim, accurately, that a direct election for president would reduce or eliminate the possibility that a fringe candidate (like a Ralph Nader or Ron Paul) winning five percent or less of the vote in a single state could serve to defeat a major party candidate from the same side of the political spectrum. But the much greater danger to American democracy is that direct elections may make it possible for a president to be elected by no more than 30 percent of the vote, regardless of his or her suitability for office, so long as there is sufficient money and a clever media advisor behind the effort.

    The issue raised by the National Popular Vote campaign is fundamental: What kind of a democracy should America be? Their answer is simple: one in which every citizen’s vote is equal to every other citizen’s vote and one in which the winner of the presidential popular vote, no matter how small his or her percentage is of those who voted, would be elected.

    The alternative view of democracy is more complex; it is one that includes but is not limited to the pursuit of equality. That view of democracy recognizes the existence and desirability of organized interests and enshrines that principle under the concept of pluralism. It understands that while the nation is one union, it is also an amalgam of varying experiences and perspectives arrived at via the settings and unique problems surrounding those who live in different places, and that these differences fall within the broad rubric of federalism. E pluribus unum — out of many, one. It is our national motto and is so for a reason.

    It sees a healthy and vibrant democracy needing the underpinnings of civil society that rests on the sustained and active engagement of the citizenry and promotes approaches that seek to maximize that involvement. It seeks to be a bulwark against mass hysteria and the hysteria created by mass media. It knows that a majoritarianism that produces a plurality is not the voice of a majority of the citizenry. The Electoral College system, however imperfect, serves this broader view of democracy.

    Imperfect, because its modern-day blessings — enhancing coalition building, pluralism, federalism and grass-roots participation — are enjoyed only by a minority of states (in any given presidential election 18 or 20), where the battle for electoral votes is competitive for both major parties. The lack of competition and campaigning in a majority of states owes itself not to the existence of the Electoral College’s indirect method of choosing presidents but rather to the winner-take-all method of choosing electors in all but two states. If a party knows either that it can’t win a single elector in a state or has an easy road to winning all of them, it sends its resources to where it has a competitive chance..

    There are alternatives to winner-take-all that do not involve abandoning the positive aspects of the Electoral College. All states could adopt the system that now exists in Maine and Nebraska, where all but two electors are chosen by congressional district, and the other two go to the statewide winner. Or states might explore what was recently proposed in Colorado — that electors be allocated in proportion to each candidate’s share of the popular vote above a certain threshold. Either would provide a reason for both parties to compete in most states because there would be electors to win. Either would likely produce an electoral vote count closer to the popular vote. And unlike direct elections, either would provide an incentive for grass-roots activity, coalition building and enhanced citizen participation.

    National Popular Vote proponents argue that the United States has had four presidential elections in which the plurality winner of the popular vote was not chosen as president. It is also true that no president since 1824 has received the votes of a majority of the eligible voters and 18 presidents, including Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, John. F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were elected with less than a majority of the votes cast. In each instance the republic has survived, and democracy has prospered despite the challenges presented. It is not at all clear that it would similarly prosper under the direct election regime being pushed by NPV.

    The appeal of NPV is the simplicity of its message. The danger of NPV is that it will undermine the complex and vital underpinnings of American democracy. NPV is more than a third of the way to its goal. The time to stop its momentum is now.

  61. John Young says:

    A sports analogy: http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/5709

    In his introduction to the book, Every Vote Counts: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, former Republican congressman and presidential candidate John B. Anderson had this to say: “I believe the occupant of the nation’s highest office should be determined by a nationwide popular vote by legally registered voters. The current system… can trump the national popular vote. The system is not based on majority rule, and it fails to provide political equality.”

    What Anderson suggests would horrify baseball fans. What he is suggests, in baseball terms, is that if the Yankees and the Phillies were to meet in a seven-game World Series, where the Yankees won three games, 5-3, 6-1, and 3-2, while the Phillies won four games, 5-2, 6-5, 5-4, and 2-1, the Yankees should be declared World Champions because they scored 26 runs in the seven games while the Phillies scored only 24. It doesn’t work that way in major league baseball and it certainly doesn’t work that way when fifty sovereign states vote to select a national leader. Any scheme for selecting a president and vice president by national popular vote would clearly violate the intent of the Framers and may very well be unconstitutional.

  62. John Young says:

    CT Voters Count: http://ctvoterscount.org/some-more-concerns-with-the-national-popular-vote/

    We are glad to see Democrats raising concerns with the National Popular Vote Agreement. Many Democrats are in favor of the Agreement in the mistaken belief that Al Gore would have won the 2000 election if the Agreement would have been in place. We point out that if there had been a complete recount of Florida, under the Electoral College he likely would have won under that system; the official popular vote gave Gore a slim margin, but without a recount it is not guaranteed that he did actually receive more votes than George Bush; and most important if the popular vote had been in effect, we agree that more individuals would have voted but nobody knows if Al Gore or George Bush would have benefited more from that.

    We also find that most Republicans want to retain the Electoral College system as they believe it currently increases their chances for victory.

    Both political sides and those who support or oppose the Agreement create an unending stream of issues supporting their case. Many of these issues have merit and are worth discussing e.g. Supporters argue for one person one vote while opponents argue for the Federal system and the wisdom of the Founders. Some issues are objective, others are subjective, and others are subjective and speculative. e.g. To what extent will candidates spend more time and money in non-swing states under the Agreement (speculative) and what value to democracy is more money to local outlets of national media, more mailers, more phone calls, and more candidates visits with the same sound bites (subjective); are small states disadvantaged by the Electoral College as proponents argue when visiting Connecticut, or are large states disadvantaged as the proponents also argue based on less electoral votes per person making their votes less equal? (subjective).

    Each of these issues deserves an intricate debate before our system is changed.

    However, we say that election integrity issues trump all the subjective issues. That the popular election of the President, especially via the Agreement, is too risky without effective reform of electoral accounting. For more details see our past posts and our testimony last year opposing the Agreement and opposing endorsement of the Electoral College as the best possible system of the electing the President.

    While we agree that “That nightmare [of 2000] may seem like a pleasant dream if NPV has its way.” we point out the incorrect claim that:

    For under its plan, the next time the U.S. has very close national vote, a recount would not be of six million votes in one state but of more than 130 million votes in all states and the District of Columbia, all with their own rules for conducting a recount.

    This is incorrect because:

    There is no official popular vote number available to officially determine the need for a recount prior to the date that each state is required to specify their electors
    Many states do not have laws providing for recounts based on close vote margins
    States that do have recount laws for close votes are based on close margins in those states, not based on national margins.
    The Agreement does nothing to change that and in any case only applies to the states that sign it.

    The article is inaccurate and too optimistic in that regard. The rest of the article brings up several issues, subjective and speculative, that are worth evaluating before making a choice between the popular vote or the Electoral College.

  63. Ezra Temko says:

    I think good reform regarding the electoral college would be to have all states give proportional votes instead of be winner-take-all. In fact, in making delegates digital instead of human, it could even be rounded to the nearest tenth (i.e. Delaware could give 1.8 electoral college to one candidate and 1.2 to the other). This would allow for small state representation to continue as well as ensure every vote counted. Regardless of the outcome of 2000, it made no sense for it to come down to whether a Gore/Bush near tie in Florida went one way or the other.

  64. heragain says:

    The moron from Vermont thought he could threaten Sen Katz, because his nose was out of joint that a guy from a blue state with a Jewish sounding name wasn’t all over the NPV foolishness. They didn’t have the votes to get it out of committee. Well, good. They can waste their time doing other stupid things than debating this bill.

  65. Right, heragain. Must be that rampant Vermont anti-semitism that’s behind the NPV movement.

  66. heragain says:

    Nope, El Som, that’s not what I said. But I think the guy believes what he’s doing is right and thought Katz would be an ally. He approached him like a sure vote and not like a swing. That was stupid.

    People look at Delaware, with all these pretty high profile statewide “D’s” and Joe, and they think “There’s a Blue state. They’ll get what we’re talking about.” They don’t really get the nuance of our “banking D’s” or think about what a district like Greenville is likely to look like. In the same way, most people in the mid-Atlantic would say, “Vermont? Oh, they’re the Green Socialist, single payer guys. Let’s sign them up with our windfarm initiative.” and we wouldn’t necessarily do our homework on the guy we were calling.

    Katz didn’t actually owe this guy a meeting. He’s not a constituent. He’s a lobbyist. He should have gone in with a nice dinner and listened politely to Katz’s jokes… like a lobbyist. He traveled 500 miles? Tough toenails.

    No one’s a sure sale.

  67. Yep, it’s what you said. Allow me to quote:

    “…because his nose was out of joint that a guy from a blue state with a Jewish sounding name wasn’t all over the NPV foolishness….”

    If it’s not what you said or meant, then why the Jewish reference?

    Don’t bother answering. It’s BS like all the other BS you spew.