Pat Forgey’s report on the Senate Finance Committee hearing on Senate Bill 39 (see Thursday’s Empire) reviews a bill that would join Alaska in the National Poplar Vote (NPV) Compact with other states to cast Alaska’s electoral votes for the presidential and vice presidential winners of the popular vote. One of the concerns mentioned involved the notion that Alaska, a conservative or red state, might be required by the compact to cast its electoral votes for progressive candidates if those candidates won the popular vote.
I propose that we look at this issue with these points in mind.
The National Popular Vote Compact has bipartisan support nationwide.
It is not the brainchild of one party or the other. There are many Republicans, Democrats, and Independents across the nation who have voted for the Compact at the state level. The NPV Advisory Board includes seven Republicans and three Democrats. To date, eight states and Washington D. C. have adopted the compact.
Those interested in more information can go to the following web address: www.NationalPopularVote.com
When we vote for the President, we are voting for the leader of the entire nation, the leader who represents all citizens, the leader who (we would hope) would work to craft policies and compromises that would benefit the entire citizenry.
Alaska is part of that nation, and very few Alaskans wish it to be any other way.
We are citizens of the United States first and residents of the great state of Alaska. We have rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States.
The U. S. military serves to protect all of us. At the state level, when we elect our governor, the candidate with the most votes wins.
The votes of all Alaskans count, and if we happen to vote for the losing candidate, it is our duty as a citizen to support the winner and most importantly, follow that winner’s actions and proposed policies. If we see something we don’t support, we need to communicate our reaction in a civil and thoughtful manner.
This citizen’s responsibility also applies to our national leaders. If the majority’s choice was not our personal choice at the national level, we need perhaps to be even more vigilant, read more from a variety of sources, check those sources and their biases, and communicate the best information we have to our elected leaders. This is our civic responsibility if we want to remain truly free.
We can’t always vote for the winner; I certainly haven’t. But I do have a problem with casting our electoral votes for the losing presidential and vice presidential candidates a month after the election’s winners are clearly evident. That seems counterproductive and does nothing to bring the country together behind duly elected leaders.
Under the National Popular Vote Compact (SB 39), those elected leaders will have won a majority of the popular vote rather than the 270 electoral votes plucked from a few states (and those states never include Alaska).
Voters in all states will have their votes counted whether they are conservative, progressive, or independent. When those elected leaders are inaugurated, the rest of us must stay informed, remain civil, and participate in our democracy.
• Andree is a 45-year resident of Alaska who has lived in Juneau for the last 25 years.
Comments (14)
Add commentConsider,
Having just the popular vote, allows the large, liberal enclaves to ride roughshod over the less populated, conservative "fly over"country. The way it is done now levels the field, so to speak. The founders were pretty smart dudes! They also knew that we MUST have a representative republic rather than a true democracy to have the country that we do. "If it ain't broke, dont fix it till it is"
Wrong-headed Approach
Gotta tell ya, I rarely vote with Alaska's majority, but even I can see that the Popular National Vote Compact sells out Alaska and its 3 electoral votes. Might just as well tell the Lower 48, "Hey, we don't care, whoever YOU think ought to be President, we'll give our electoral votes to even if we all voted for somebody else."
The Electoral College is now
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.
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. 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 National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.
With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
Now, 26% of votes, winning just 11 biggest states, can win
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes
Alaska is ignored under the current system
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Alaska will not matter. At most, 12 states will determine the election. Candidates will not care about at least 76% of the voters-- voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and in 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. More than 85 million voters, like Alaska, have been just spectators to the general election.
Now, policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states, like Alaska - that include 9 of the original 13 states - are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing, too.
Proportional award
Under the NPV, the national popular vote could be for Newt Gingrich, while not one Alaskan voted for him. But our electoral votes would ALL go for him. That doesn't seem to represent the intent of Alaskans.
On the other hand, if 50.001% of the Alaska vote went toward candidate Palin, all 3 of our electoral votes go to her, and that disenfranchises a lot of Alaskans who voted against her.
A proportional split of the electoral votes, based on the Alaskan vote, seems to represent the will of Alaskans most fairly. If 1/3 of Alaskans vote for Obama, then 1 electoral vote goes his way.
Don't like the Electoral College? Think it should be done away with? Fine. But I don't think the State has that power since the EC is enshrined in the national constitution. We'll have to do the best we can. A proportional split is the best we can.
need more exact information
I can not read between the lines in this movements addenda. I believe the voters need a lot more than a few cursory examples of what affect such changes would have made going back at least 100 years. That would only be 25 election cycles. Should the change be implemented it going to remain that way for at least an election or two.
I can say after the last four elections there has been proposals for changing the presidential electoral voting. Both parties seem to come up with rationals on how the system put the wrong candidate into office. Unless of course the system put their candidate into office.
The electoral system changes allowing actual voters to cast a ballot came about after a large number of voters realized their legislature could do what it wanted with the electoral votes of the state. IMHO I believe every state should be required to cast its electoral votes based on a ratio determined by actual votes cast by the voters. It not like the math involved would take more than a hand held calculator to compute the number of electoral votes for each candidate.
He's Coming
The troll will be out soon but you already fed him too much.
Bad Idea
I have to respectfully disagree with the proposed change. I prefer our current system.
I'll pull a toto and copy and
I'll pull a toto and copy and paste.
Reasons why the national popular vote idea is bad -
- Eliminating the Electoral College will allow voter fraud to impact the entire national vote tally. Such a change is sure to encourage rampant fraudulent activity.
- In Federalist No. 10, James Madison argues that the presence of the Electoral College and the resulting diffusion of power and authority countervails against the influence and instability of passionate factions.
- Madison writes that the Electoral College will protect America from, “The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils,” which, according to Madison, “have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.”
- Without the college, the delicate federal balance between national unity and regional distinctiveness would be lost and the various states would lose much of their power over the Executive Branch.
- The left wants a national democracy rather than a republic. It is pushing this "reform" hard.
- This is very similar to the 17th Amendment which established direct elections of United States Senators by popular vote. One step closer to a democracy. This neutered state's rights and the destroyed balance of power between states and the federal government. You can certainly see where that got us... a federal government that walks all over the states.
- The framers of the Constitution wanted a form of government "that would reflect the people but also respect the minority." The system they set up "allows the majority to rule, but only when it is reasonable. It also allows the minority to throw up road blocks." The Electoral College is the perfect system that provides the coexistence of these provisions.
- The whole purpose of the Constitution is to defuse power so that neither the President, nor the Supreme Court, nor Congress, could become a tyranny over the people. Governing should be slow and messy.
- A federal government unencumbered by a federalist “checks and balances” system would grow ever larger.
Moderated - again?
Moderated - again?
70% of Alaska Voters Support a National Popular Vote
A survey of Alaska voters conducted on January 27-28, 2010 showed 70% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Voters were asked "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?"
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 66% among Republicans, 78% among Democrats, 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
By gender, support was 78% among women and 60% among men.
By age, support was 68% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for those older than 65
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.
NationalPopularVote
When it comes to voices being heard...
Interesting concept, but I'm pretty darn sure that 37,000,000 Californians can shout louder than 700,000 Alaskans.
And 55 California electoral votes are louder than 3 Alaskan
So?