New Jersey, in its infinite stupidity, passed legislation yesterday endorsing the National Popular Vote movement. In short, this legislation has the potential to undermine the Electoral College and give the state’s Presidential electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. Think of it as the no-thought-needed “fix” to the Electoral College.
Of course by passing this legislation, the NJ lawmakers must assume that all of New Jersey believes that the Electoral College needs to be “fixed” in the first place (all of New Jersey – because every single New Jersey voter is affected). Further, this legislation assumes that not only should the Electoral College be fixed, but that this is the right way to do it (which it obviously is not). But in today’s world of quick fixes and easy answers, I’m not sure anyone would care why this is not the right way to handle the Electoral College. So for those of you who don’t want to think, go ahead and skip over to another website at this point – I’m going to attempt to explain why this legislation sucks.
First, it’s a fringe piece of legislation that could only actually take effect if states with a combined 270 electoral votes pass it. In other words, we’ve now suited up New Jersey in her best game garb and set her on the sidelines, waiting to be let into the game. Until enough states pass this legislation, it essentially means nothing and has no bearing on the current system. Why is this dangerous? Because by passing this bill, New Jersey’s politicians (who have proven their ineptitude almost on an hourly basis) now believe they are “done” with this issue. Nothing could be further from reality.
Second, the Electoral College was set up as a Constitutional compromise between those states who wanted direct election of the President and those who wanted a more Parliament-like system where the Congress chooses the candidate. People today think of the American system of government too much like the rest of the world’s governments. We’re not like the rest of the world! Direct elections in another country do not mean that Americans should have direct elections! Our Founding Fathers specifically moved AWAY from that form of elections. And don’t go crying about changing with the times. Bullshit on that relativist philosophy. Change is the precursor to revolution and in the only country in the world with mandated suffrage for each and every color, creed, and gender of human being, the only revolution that we truly need is an educational one (perhaps starting with history).
Third, the Electoral College gives the states power. Don’t believe me? Go back in time about 20 days ago before Iowa held their caucuses and New Hampshire held their primary and tell me that Iowa and New Hampshire voters didn’t have each and every one of their concerns addressed by the Presidential candidates. Take a trip down to South Carolina or Florida or over to Michigan and tell me that issues that directly effect those states aren’t being thought about, dissected, and presented with solutions by the candidates. The Electoral College ensures that ALL states have a say in who becomes President. To be an American is to accept that we are a nation that is comprised of 50 individual states who are joined together under a federal system of government. Period. This is not a nation that has federally controlled districts with federally installed Governors.
And fourth, in our current system, a candidate needs to win all of those middle states with lower electoral vote counts in order to be competitive in the final count. But – did you know that you only need to win the 12 states with the biggest electoral vote counts to win the Presidency? That means that 38 other states can think one thing, but if the 12 biggest states think something else, they win. That’s an abomination of what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country. And whether the relativists of today like it or not, what the Founding Fathers wanted hundreds of years ago IS relevant to today’s politics because this is America, the great political experiment in liberty.
Under the national popular vote system, all that matters is that a candidate win major population centers, not states. Endorsing the national popular vote system is endorsing the idea that states’ rights don’t matter – the exact opposite of what our Founding Fathers fought for so many years ago. How could ANY of the concerns of middle America or rural areas ever be addressed if all a candidate needed to win the election was to win the New York City area, Los Angeles area, Dallas area, Chicago area, and Atlanta area votes? What about Fort Worth, Texas? What about Bismark, North Dakota? What about the entire states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming?
Endorsing the national popular vote says that we don’t care about what our fellow Americans needs are in other, smaller states and other, smaller population centers. It’s an abomination. If the national popular vote succeeds and enough states endorse it, then it really might be time to change the name of this country because we will no longer be the America that was founded on all of those idyllic principles so many years ago. We’ll be a different country with different goals – hell, we might as well erase the lines between our states because they won’t matter any more.
It’s disgusting.
A better option would be to follow what Nebraska and Maine do with their electors. Since each state has a number of electors equal to their number of Senators and Congressmen, the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets the 2 “senator” votes and the rest of the electoral votes and divided into Congressional districts. If you win all of the Congressional districts in a state, you win all of the electoral votes. If you win 3 of 7 districts, you get 3 electoral votes.
This is the only fair, reasonable, LOGICAL alternative to the current system.
Leave a Reply