On July 7, Michael Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic nominee for president, e-mailed all members of the Massachusetts legislature and asked them to vote for HB 678, the National Popular Vote Plan bill. The bill will probably receive a vote in the House on July 9. See this Boston Herald article for more details.
The National Popular Vote Plan and other attempts to get around or abolish the Electoral College are misguided efforts that would not only make it harder for independents and third parties, they would eviscerate one of the greatest safegards the Constitution has provided to protect our rights and liberties from an even larger and more evil fascist central government.
We should stop cheerleading for these efforts and insead adamantly oppose these misguided efforts.
When I have time I’ll write a more extensive analysis.
The National Popular Vote Plan does not attempt to abolish or even “get around” the electoral college. Instead it is proposing that the Electoral College work in a different fashion. We would still have the Electoral College if the plan were implemented. And nothing would change for third party and independent presidential candidates if the National Popular Vote Plan were implemented. Ballot access would continue exactly as it is now.
But, if the US Constitution were amended to provide for a direct popular vote, that would change ballot access, because the Bill Nelson constitutional amendment gives Congress the power to write ballot access laws for president.
I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of not having every vote count equally nationwide. One could argue, the current system also does a disservice to third party candidates as well, in both getting on the ballot in 50 different states, and in the fact that they barely ever get any electoral college votes to begin with, unless they have a sizable percentage of the vote. At least this plan, would open the door in the near future to an amendment, preferably with a runoff provision.
DUKAKIS IS A NUT CASE .
Great news, I hope they pass it into law.
Sorry, Richard, but I don’t agree. If states would change to allocating their electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska do, that would be a positive change and would make every electoral district important, instead of every state. It would be good for third parties since it would give them a greater opportunity to win electoral votes somewhere and begin to build a base of support. It would maintain the Federal nature of the Constitution and make the Electoral College more representative of the national vote.
Even now, third parties have the chance to build support state by state and region by region and grow until they can win pluralities in the House and Senate and win the White House. Modern third parties, however, especially the LP, have failed to institute a rational party building plan for victory.
Under the National Initiative, in those states enacting such foolish and dangerous legislation, the electoral votes earned by a third party would be automatically switched to whoever gets the most votes. This would wipe out any chance for a third party to grow by winning one state at a time and building a base. It would eliminate the need to take regionally powerful small parties seriously. It would wipe out the one great hope that a small party has to grow and eventually win.
The fact that the leadership of the LP has been incapable of coming up with any plan to win since the Berglandistas torpedoed the Party in ’83 doesn’t mean the LP couldn’t have won by now. It’s just that much of the time since ’83 the party has been in the hands of looters, incompetents or both.
On those few occasions when the party had decent, honest leadership and was growing, they still couldn’t overcome the provincialism, bickering, factionalism and lack of strategic foresight of its National Committee.
Since the National Initiative is being supported in mostly Democratic leaning states, it could have a perverse electoral outcome.
If they actually became operative it would be something like this:
1) The Dem candidate wins the popular vote in a close race but loses in the EC. The Dem candidate will have carried nearly all of the Nat Pop Vote states. One or two of the NPV states will have voted for the Republican, who will have won, except for the effect this law.
At this point, the Republican Party, Candidates, National Committee, the Presidential Elector candidates, and individual voters of the affected state or states will sue over this law in a challenge that will go straight to the Supreme Court.
In a replay worse that that in 2000, the Supreme Court will end up making a court ruling that will look like it is choosing the President. The NPV laws would likely be struck down, the R candidate would still win with an EC majority and less than a plurality of the popular vote, and the result would be chaos. Better that the NPV plan should never see the light of day.
The problems caused by the NPV scheme would be worse than the disease.
2) On the other hand, if the laws go into effect and the results are reversed, with a Repub Pres candidate winning the popular vote but losing slightly in the EC before the plan, the states that passed the plan could all be Dem states, they could all flip to the Republican, and the R candidate could end up with 100% of the Electoral Vote. Could the Supreme Court overturn that result? Not likely.
Stupid plan.
Democrats lose either way.
And if somehow the plan became effective and was not overturned by the Supreme Court, it would have the effect of eviscerating the hopes of third parties.
We should oppose the National Vote Plan.
We should support the spead of the Maine and Nebraska electoral college vote system.
The reason more states don’t allocate their electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska do, in my view, is that “winner-take-all” maximizes a state’s impact on the process.
Colorado voters, as I recall, rejected a similar proposal in 2004.
Yes, Steve, it is difficult to sell a good plan like the Maine/Nebraska system, but that is preferable to supporting a bad plan like the National Popular Vote plan which will bring the US another step closer to tyranny.
I think there are some interesting points here, but I wonder how this will all play out in the next few weeks…???