 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
     |
 |
68°
Cloudy | 7MPH
NEWSROOM * CIRCULATION * ADVERTISING
Thursday
September 2010
2
Community Blogs
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
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- What is BIG, Yellow & Black, and Scary? (to some) (2)
- America's National Park Service turned 94 this week (14)
- Wisconsin's primary is 3 weeks away - who are you voting for? (4)
- Walker rally made political hay, ad gained national attention (18)
- To-Do List: Email Alderman & Mayor re: Brookfield train station, Walker rally in 3rd Ward (3)
- Tax the rich? Every job I had was because of rich! (34)
- Ron Johnson inches ahead in poll, 48% to Feingold's 46% (1)
- STOP the Obama & Doyle Waste-of-Money Train, Speak up Aug. 3 (5)
- How is Barrett "knee deep" in sewer water yet squeaky clean? JournoList? (8)
- Obama to Republicans: Don't do as I say about cutting spending (8)
- More Practically Speaking posts
46 Comments
kohler - Feb 17, 2010 2:58 PM
Support was 81% among Democrats, 67% among independents, and 63% among Republicans.
By age, support was 68% among 18-29 year olds, 62% among 30-45 year olds, 72% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 80% among women and 61% among men.
By race, support was 72% among whites (representing 89% of respondents), 64% among African-Americans (representing 5% of respondents), and 58% among Others (representing 5% of respondents).
see www.NationalPopularVote.com
kohler - Feb 17, 2010 3:01 PM
The entire bill is posted at
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php
kohler - Feb 17, 2010 3:03 PM
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule 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.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
kohler - Feb 17, 2010 3:05 PM
Only 5 of the 25 small states are battlegrounds -- Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota
12 of the 13 smallest states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by eight state legislative chambers, including one house in Delaware and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
mikeyd - Feb 17, 2010 3:29 PM
I agree with kohler (and that he/she proved very well with campaign funds and polling numbers) that the current system creates an environment where all the attention and importance is placed on a few closely contested 'battleground' states. It is quite annoying to watch the coverage the night of national elections and watch calls on one or two states essentially end it, before many states have even closed voting booths.
How discouraging for those still heading to the voting booths, how discouraging to those in states where the result is a foregone conclusion before the election even takes place.
DianaC - Feb 17, 2010 3:43 PM
This is part of the reason why the Maine House of Representatives voted the NPV legislation down earlier this month by 95-50. Rhode Island did pass the legislation through both chambers in 2008. BUT in 2009, the Rhode Island House defeated the bill after 10 Democrats reversed their 2008 votes. It was vetoed in Vermont and was only passed in Hawaii after the legislature overrode the governor's veto.
Check out www.SaveOurStates.com for more information on the dangers of a national popular vote and the merits of the Electoral College.
If Wisconsin legislators want to eliminate their citizens' say in presidential elections, this legislation would do it.
Lord Brookfield - Feb 17, 2010 3:43 PM
mikeyd - Feb 17, 2010 3:47 PM
Wisconsin, according to recent census data, has about 5.6 million people, US has 304 million. This is considering of course even non-voting age citizens but it gives a rough estimate.
Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes account for 1.86% of the 538 total and Wisconsin's total population is 1.84% of US total population.
I guess we win because each of our votes counts more than the national average vote. Somehow that still seems unfair to me. I guess I do believe in The Power of Equality.
kohler - Feb 17, 2010 3:51 PM
Under the current presidential election system, voters in three-quarters of the states are not politically relevant; every vote is not equal; states disregard the votes for the losers of their state, and do not value the votes for the winner beyond the one vote more than the leading opponent; the House of Representatives could be left to decide who will be President; and the clear will of the people may be ignored. Ultimately, the choice is whether it is more important for the winner in a particular state to receive the state's electoral votes or for the winner of the entire country to win the White House.
Kyle Prast - Feb 17, 2010 3:52 PM
By the way Kohler, are you even from Wisconsin?
DianaC - Feb 17, 2010 4:04 PM
Have legislators considered that the National Popular Vote legislation would force Wisconsin's electoral votes to be cast according to the national popular vote winner -- regardless of how Wisconsin voted? For example, WI voters favored John Kerry in 2004, so all 10 electoral votes went for Kerry. Under NPV, all 10 electoral votes would have gone to Bush since Bush won the national popular vote. In what way would that have represented Wisconsin voters? Particularly when every state has its own ballot access criteria. There is no requirement in the NPV legislation that the same candidates even appear on every states' ballot. Litigation would inevitably follow were this to pass.
CarpieD - Feb 17, 2010 4:05 PM
Kyle Prast - Feb 17, 2010 4:50 PM
kohler - Feb 17, 2010 5:00 PM
Kyle Prast - Feb 17, 2010 5:02 PM
Im Thinkin - Feb 17, 2010 5:03 PM
kohler - Feb 17, 2010 5:10 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets.
DianaC - Feb 17, 2010 5:43 PM
Yet the National Popular Vote legislation makes no provision for accomplishing what is an unprecedented task (a national election) within that time frame. Indeed, settling the many lawsuits the attempt would create would itself be impossible within that "national schedule." Consider what Florida faced in 2000 then multiply that by 50.
A mom - Feb 17, 2010 6:38 PM
Now - did anybody hear what happened in that hearing today?