Practically Speaking
Kyle and her husband moved to Brookfield in 1986. She became active in local politics and started blogging in 2004. Her focus is primarily on local issues but often includes state and national topics, too. Kyle looks at things from the taxpayers' perspective in a creative, yet down to earth way, addressing them from a practical point of view.
Call today about AB 751: Elimination of Electoral College Bill - Correction/Update
Have you heard about this new bill in Madison, AB 751, The National Popular Vote Bill? I doubt that you have unless you listen to Vicki McKenna or WVCY. The Public Hearing is today.
But don't feel like you have been asleep at the wheel, the bill was only just introduced 2 days ago on Monday, Feb. 15, 2010. Also on Monday, they announced the Public Hearing for today, Wednesday, Feb. 17th at 1pm.
Think they are trying to ram this one through below the radar? (I heard Vicki mention it yesterday. She also talked about it today in her first 45 minutes. Do listen to the first hour for Wed. Feb 17. I then Googled the bill number and found WVCY's Homefront blog page on it.)
The actual bill proposes "entering into an agreement among the states to elect the president of the United States by means of a national popular vote."
Now at first blush, that might not seem like a bad idea, to just count the popular vote. But think about it. If popular vote alone decided elections, the most population dense states would dictate who our president is. The top 3 states being California, New York and Texas. Urban areas would decide for us all. Even if you factor in the top 10 states, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, etc. Wisconsin is still not a player. So what about the other 40 states in the Union?
If this change goes through, why would any presidential candidate bother coming to Wisconsin?
An even more insidious aspect of this bill is that it calls for a Constitutional Convention (Correction, it doesn't call for it ) it SIDESTEPS the Constitution to make the change from the Electoral College to Popular Vote. (More on that below the legislator info.)
CALL YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE! Find your State Legislator
Ask them how this would help Wisconsin residents have any voice in presidential politics?
Brookfield's Representatives: Rich Zipperer (608) 266-5120 and Leah Vukmir (608) 266-9180
List of Representatives on the Committee of Elections and Campaign Reform: (From Homefront)
Rep. Jeff Smith (Chair) 1-888-534-0093
Counting only the popular vote flies in the face of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who realized they had to balance the influence of densely populated states with those of less population. That is why we have a House of Representatives, whose membership is based on population, balanced by the Senate, that gives every state the same number of representatives. In a similar way, the Popular Vote is balanced by the Electoral College.
As I mentioned above, this bill would call for a Constitutional Convention SIDESTEPS the Constitutional amendment process to make the change from the Electoral College to Popular Vote.
(A Constitutional Convention isn't directly pertinent now but the concerns are still valid.) I still remember my high school American History teacher's warning about Constitutional Conventions. (My opinion on this goes way back!) She cautioned that once they are called, anything goes; it is all open to change, even the Bill of Rights!
This is what Eagle Forum says about Con Cons or Constitutional Conventions (Read the whole piece, it is worth your time. My emphasis is in red):
"The trouble with a Con Con is that there are no rules in the Constitution or in any law to limit a Con Con's purpose, procedure, agenda, or election of delegates. Congress has repeatedly rejected bills to establish rules or procedures. There is no way to control a Con Con in advance or to require it to consider only one subject. The Article V provision that authorizes the calling of a Con Con refers to considering "amendments" (note the plural)."
I am trying to find the exact quote* about calling a Constitutional Convention, but it went something like this: Why would I exchange the wisdom of our Founding Fathers for those in the Congress today? Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of a Constitutional Convention? They can't even stick to our written Constitution. Make those calls!
UPDATE: This afternoon, I spoke to Diana Cieslak of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (she is DianaC in comments). She said that National Popular Vote doesn't call for ANY change to the Constitution, but it does sidestep the traditional Constitutional amendment process. The theory is that eventually the Constitution would need to be amended if enough states adopt this measure.
She also said that if enough states, totaling 270 electoral votes, adopt National Popular Vote, then the Interstate Compact clause in the Constitution would go into effect and they could agree to a National Popular Vote winner, usurping your state's popular vote regardless if your state passes this or not--italics are my words.
Diana directed me to a piece she wrote last year: Electoral College or NPV It answers a lot of questions about the Electoral College and National Popular Vote.
Save Our States Director, Trent England, was in Madison today talking to legislators about the dangers of NPV. I don't know what happened at the hearing.
More reading: Save Our States: "Wisconsin would lose big time!" under National Popular Vote
Badger Blogger: Not just no...
Don't Knock the Electoral College
Beware of Attacks on the Constitution
Proposed Legislation Can Circumvent Vote of Wisconsin Residents
*Mark Levin, a Constitutional Lawyer, mentioned that quote some weeks ago.
NOTE OF INTEREST: I was curious about kohler's many l-o-n-g comments on this blog, so I Googled kohler National Public Vote. I found many of the same comments with kohler's name on Badger Blogger's piece, Topix - Brattleboro Reformer, Vermont's piece: National Popular Vote is a bad idea that hurts Vermont (on that paper's site it states kohler, Mountain View, CA), and on many others. I guess he really wants this change? I don't know...I just found that interesting.
Links:
Brookfield7, BetterBrookfield, Vicki McKenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Randy Melchert, Mark Levin, The Heritage Foundation, CNS News, Breitbart BigGovernment
46 COMMENTS
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Mikeyd, I didn't make a value judgment on kohler, just that he must feel strongly about it to comment on so many blogs and sites nationwide.
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
CindyK, My politics are showing? Where? I don't have a mirror with me...
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Hi Kyle, just a little bit off subject but interesting. This is a scrable thing for those interested.
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
BTW, I may have missed it, but who are the Republican sponsors? I've seen where Newcomer backed away. The other two?
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Great job drawing out real discussion, Kyle. You are amazing when it comes to following these issues.
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
LB,
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
I found Diana's connection to the issue by going to Saveourstates.com that she mentioned in her comment. I am thinking she responded to this post because the measure was the subject of a public hearing in Madison?
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Not that I agree with Kohler or Diana C, but I find it just as suspicious that Diana C, who apparently is from Washington state comments on this local community blog as ardently for her position as does Kohler.
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
There's no "sidestepping" the Constitution either.
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Oh come on, everyone here knows your anti-tax animus.
- Share
-
Load more comments View all comments Back to topKyle Prast - Feb 19, 2010 3:08 PM - Report Abuse
There are 15 sponsors of which 3 are Republicans: Newcomer of Pewaukee 608-266-3007, Kaufert of Neenah 608-266-5719, and Alvin Ott of Forest Junction 608-266-5831 ...give them a call?
No mystery to seeing who all sponsored the bill, just click the bill number link in the post above. To see which party and area they come from, just go to http://www.legis.state.wi.us/w3asp/contact/legislatorslist.aspx?house=assembly and look at the names!
mikeyd - Feb 19, 2010 9:28 AM - Report Abuse
Kyle, it's pretty obvious that kohler feels strongly about the issue, but if that is a bad thing (and I am not saying it is for either of you), but if feeling strongly about this issue and blogging about it is a Bad Thing as you seem to imply in your blog amendment, well, you need a mirror too.]
Oh, and who are the sponsors? On both sides of that aisle?
Nail Bender - Feb 19, 2010 8:31 AM - Report Abuse
ELECTION RESULTS - LIES LETS RECOUNT.
Cindy K - Feb 18, 2010 7:55 PM - Report Abuse
Cindy K - Feb 18, 2010 7:42 PM - Report Abuse
mikeyd - your politics are showing. I don't think I've ever seen you make two in a row. Between throwing out the race card and slamming the "republican governor wannabe" you've certainly outdone yourself. (And I thought that guy was running against Feingold?)
Yes, this bill challenges the Constitution. Yes, I think the Constitution will prevail. No, I don't think it's the last time we'll have to defend it. Unfortunately, that seems to be a weekly battle in the current climate.
Thank goodness there are folks like Kyle keeping watch for us.
DianaC - Feb 18, 2010 6:26 PM - Report Abuse
Happy to explain. As you say, I'm not in your community, I'm out in Washington state.
First, while NPV legislation is moving state by state, this is a national issue; if the legislation were enacted in enough states that amount to 270 electoral votes, every voter in the nation would be affected. What SHOULD be a national debate is being slid through the cracks in a clever state-by-state stealth maneuver.
The Save Our States Project works to get information out to policymakers and the public in targeted states and point out important historical and political facts that must be considered when tampering with something as important—and successful—as the Constitution.
Kohler, on the other hand, usually only copies and pastes text from www.nationalpopularvote.com (something we never do; my comments are unique). If you google his/her comments above, you’ll find them on a number of other blogs, usually under the name “Mvymvy.”
Wisconsin citizens and legislators need to take this issue very seriously if you care about having a say in presidential elections. My goal is to point out resources and offer information that people need to be aware of. What happens is, of course, up to you.
Kyle Prast - Feb 18, 2010 5:14 PM - Report Abuse
kohler probably googled the same. His name appears on many blog comments across the nation.
No mystery in finding my blog. She probably just Googled "madison national popular vote public hearing" and there I was on page 1. http://www.google.com/search?q=madison+national+popular+vote+public+hearing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (You could also ask her.)
Lord Brookfield - Feb 18, 2010 4:19 PM - Report Abuse
Do they montior each one's activities? How did they find out about this blog?
kohler - Feb 18, 2010 3:12 PM - Report Abuse
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, nowadays, 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 rule (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 rule 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 rule) 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.
What the current U.S. Constitution says is "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."
Lord Brookfield - Feb 18, 2010 3:02 PM - Report Abuse
Mikeyd is correct, your implication, while maybe not intended, is very racial. By the way, there are social program recipients all over. Even here in Brookfield.
I have a thought, what if all white people voted for a white guy. The horror, the horror, the horror.