Left Tries an End-Run Around the Electoral College

Left Tries an End-Run Around the Electoral College


Liberals have concocted yet another method to get around the founders’ Constitution. They plan to elect the President in 2012 on the basis of the national popular vote, rather than by a majority of the electoral college.

Although earlier progressive innovations have confused the process, the Constitution is quite clear that the President is chosen by electors, appointed by each state “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.” Like the bicameral Congress, the presidency was infused with federalism—the states as states would have a role to play in the choice of the chief executive.

Indeed, the framers expected that, after George Washington, few men would have sufficient stature to command an electoral college majority. Thus the President would be chosen by the House of Representatives, by a special method in which each state delegation would cast one vote. But in time, the political parties produced a system in which the popular vote majority almost always was the electoral vote majority.

More important, the founders wanted to make sure that the President could not claim to embody the people. The presidential election would not be a plebiscite, of the kind that produced Caesar, Napoleon, or other demagogic dictators.

In short, the Electoral College would keep the President a constitutional president—limited and balanced by the other levels and branches of the constitutional system.

[Rommey]

They plan to elect the President in 2012 on the basis of the national popular vote, rather than by a majority of the electoral college.

Although earlier progressive innovations have confused the process, the Constitution is quite clear that the President is chosen by electors, appointed by each state “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.”

A state chooses the electors and can prescribe how those electors shall vote. Although not all states require an elector to vote for a specific candidate, some do:

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
DELAWARE
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTH DAKOTA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
WEST VIRGINIA

Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ALABAMA - Party Pledge / State Law - § 17-19-2
ALASKA - Party Pledge / State Law - § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA - State Law - § 6906
COLORADO - State Law - § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT - State Law § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - DC Pledge / DC Law - § 1-1312(g)
FLORIDA - Party Pledge / State Law - § 103.021(1)
HAWAII - State Law - §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE - State Law - § 805
MARYLAND - State Law - § 20-4
MASSACHUSETTS - Party Pledge / State Law - Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN - State Law - §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and elector is replaced).
MISSISSIPPI - Party Pledge / State Law - §23-15-785(3)
MONTANA - State Law - §13-25-104
NEBRASKA - State Law - § 32-714
NEVADA - State Law - § 298.050
NEW MEXICO - State Law - § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA - State Law - § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO - State Law - § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA - State Pledge / State Law - 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON - State Pledge / State Law - § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA - State Pledge / State Law - § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT - State Law - title 17, § 2732
VIRGINIA - State Law - § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory - "Shall be expected" to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON - Party Pledge / State Law - §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN - State Law - § 7.75
WYOMING - State Law - §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108


Since many states already direct how their electors should vote, I don't think its a problem (legally speaking) to say they have the electors to vote based on the National Popular vote, although it cedes a lot of any state's importance and the wishes of its residents.

I know Maryland has a law that would award the state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. As long as others agree to do the same as the law will not go into effect until enough states adding up to 270 also enact similar laws. I would guess this was driven by the 2000 election when Gore won the national popular vote. The thing is that Gore won Maryland's votes, so this law, had it been in effect at the time, wouldn't have changed Maryland's votes. But, can you imagine how many heads would have exploded when they realized they would have had to cast their votes FOR George Bush in 2004 (not to mention that this law would have been quickly been repealed )?

I would rather have the states electors vote based on the popular vote of each district with the leading vote getter of the entire state getting 2. I feel this represents the [any] state population better.