The Electoral College

According to the Des Moines Register, Democrats in the Iowa Senate are proposing a change to Iowa law that would grant Iowa's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Currently Iowa's electoral votes go the winner of the vote in here Iowa.

Democrat Senate majority leader Gronstal said:

I think there's broad support for the concept that a majority of the people in the country should elect a president,... This is a mechanism to get there and it doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

Wow, the Democrats take control and they think they can do anything. In this case, Gronstal is suggesting and end run around the Constitution.

Of course all of this is in response to the 2000 election where George W. Bush lost the popular vote but became president after winning in the Electoral College. Not only does Gronstal not respect the Constitution — he also does not respect Iowans.

Listen carefully to what he is proposing. If Iowa votes for one candidate but the nation votes for another, Gronstal would negate our votes in favor if the national vote.

What Gronstal really means is:

I think that voters in the more populous urban centers on the East and West Coasts should choose the president based on their values and needs. The opinions and interest of those of us who live in flyover country really don't matter.

In forming our constitution, the founders understood that the interests of both large and small states had to be respected. The Electoral College allows small states to have a voice in selecting the president.

So, Gronstal wants to take away Iowans' voice in choosing the president. The next logical step is to do another end run around the Constitution and take away one of Iowa's Senators. On the other hand, if we could convince Tom Harkin to stay home — I might be OK with that.

Comments

[Wes]

I don’t think people understand how stupid this idea really is. If you make Iowa’s electoral votes contingent upon the national popular vote, we simply surrender any relevance Iowa has in the election of a President. Gronstall is clearly far too stupid to understand the history of why the electoral college exists. The who reason it exists in the first place is to provide a balance of power between small states and large states.
For instance, more people live in New York City than in the state of Iowa, so if New York City has that much power to elect our national leadership than why would anyone running for President care at all about Iowa issues like oh .. I don’t know … agriculture? By even talking about a proposal like this, Gronstall shows his total ignorance of the entire electoral process.
I disagree with a great deal of what Gronstall and his cronies do and say, but this proposal literally makes my blood boil.
Honestly, if our logic is that the Electoral College undermines the popular “will of the people” than why, Senator Gronstall, do we even bother to elect members of the Senate and Congress? Doesn’t the election of members of the opposition party in some districts and states undermine the “will of the people” when they elect a president? After all, doesn’t a separation of powers as outlined by the constitution directly undermines the mandate a President wins when he/she is elected? Shouldn’t a President have the power to simply appoint his own legislative body? After all, he/she did win the national popular vote, so wouldn’t any attempt to temper his/her power directly conflict with the “will of the people.”
I am completely serious when I say that we, as Republicans and more importantly as Iowans need to raise the alarm about this utterly stupid piece of legislative ignorance. This is legislation if passed would be 100 times worse than the lottery sales bill because unlike the sale of the lottery that would waste billions of tax payer dollars, this bill would directly and forever undermine the most sacred of American rights, our right to elect a President!

[Scott Adkins]

"Stupid is, as Stupid does" Mr. Gronstal. It is hard to imagine that the ranking leader of the Democratic Party in Iowa, would even put forth this idea. Of course he also stated that there is "no budget deficit in 2010" and "the auditor is wrong". I am amazed that any rational person would vote for him. What are the voters in Iowa hoping for? Boggles the mind. I mean really, I am just flabbergasted. I am not able to express my complete disdain and utter lividness with this piece of filth that calls him self a legislator. How dumb must he think the people of Iowa are? Incredible.

[IowaFan]

This is about the most outrageous thing I have ever heard from a Democrat.

The Electoral College was designed by brillant citizens of this amazing land for the reasons you and other posters have laid out.

This idea is not a lot different from Legislators in urban districts proposing to save $ by consolidating school districts in rural Iowa... Who cares that kids spend 2 hours a day on a bus.

crazy!

We get the government we deserve based on the message and madness of our times. We can do better than this!

[mvymvy]

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that needs to be changed in order to have a national popular vote for President. The winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes inside the state) is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is strictly a matter of state law. The winner-take-all rule was not the choice of the Founding Fathers, as indicated by the fact that the winner-take-all rule was used by only 3 states in the nation's first presidential election in 1789. The fact that Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district is another reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. All the 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 states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." A federal constitutional amendment is not needed to change state laws.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[mvymvy]

The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.

Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).

Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. 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.

The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York's use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming--both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.

The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

The National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.

[mvymvy]

When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

Under a national popular vote, every vote is equally important politically. There is nothing special about a vote cast in a big city. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties know that they must seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the state in order to win the state. A vote cast in a big city is no more valuable than a vote cast in a small town or rural area.

Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate won 100% of the votes in the nation’s top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.

Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.

[Scott Adkins]

"The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill."

Well one has to wonder how many total legislators (I am talking total number here) there are in the US. That might be relevant.

"The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations."

Well I guess that makes it a good reason to vote for this!!! Those are bipartisan newspapers!! And why is that listed as a reason to vote for this? I should let the TIMES make my decisions for me?

"The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%)."

Well that is 24 states but we don't see Iowa in the list and we really don't know how that poll was put together do we? Is that a poll of just Democrats? What areas of the nation did they poll. Both coasts? If I were to go to a large city and take a poll of people who want the popular vote I bet I could get better results than that. Oh I forgot just because some other states are doing it we should. Similar to the same day voter registration.

Nice cut and paste job from their website though. This organization is a 501c3 from California. Maybe they should focus their energies on getting their own state up and running. Way to not put your name. At least own up the cut and paste that you did.

[Scott Adkins]

"The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill."

Well one has to wonder how many total legislators (I am talking total number here) there are in the US. That might be relevant.

"The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations."

Well I guess that makes it a good reason to vote for this!!! Those are bipartisan newspapers!! And why is that listed as a reason to vote for this? I should let the TIMES make my decisions for me?

"The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%)."

Well that is 24 states but we don't see Iowa in the list and we really don't know how that poll was put together do we? Is that a poll of just Democrats? What areas of the nation did they poll. Both coasts? If I were to go to a large city and take a poll of people who want the popular vote I bet I could get better results than that. Oh I forgot just because some other states are doing it we should. Similar to the same day voter registration.

Nice cut and paste job from their website though. This organization is a 501c3 from California. Maybe they should focus their energies on getting their own state up and running. Way to not put your name. At least own up the cut and paste that you did. This mvy seems to be from the organization that is pushing for the bill. Google mvymvy. Seems to have posted this all over the US.

[Wes]

It also sounds a lot like a piece put out by the national ad council in an effort to sell more advertising in places where ads are incredibly expensive but aren’t run because there would be no point. Take the Boston DMA. It is one of the most expensive DMAs in the nation, but it isn’t used because Massachusetts is a Democrat safe state. The battle ground state formula is not only good for small states striving for influence over big states like New York, California and Texas, it also helps campaigns set priorities for spending limited resources. The money we waste on Presidential elections are astronomical. I wonder if the California based 501C bothered to poll anyone on how they feel about big campaign money having too much influence in American politics (particularly where the white house is concerned?) The same people who come up with half baked ideas like a national popular vote claim to hate the impact that big campaign money has on American Politics. Yet they come out with a proposal that with make the price tag on the Presidency explode to heights that none of us can even begin to fathom. Does anyone from the National popular vote campaign money can basically buy the Presidency yet, they come up with stupid ideas like a national popular vote. It doesn’t surprise me that Gronstal, the same idiot who allowed the Iowa state budget grow by an unsustainable 17% in just 2 years would fail to understand the financial impact of this stupid proposal.

This idea stinks of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. The whole national popular vote movement grew almost exclusively out of the 2000 Presidential election. Prior to that, I wonder how many people polled in the statistics quoted above even knew our system for electing a President? Even today, I seriously question how many actually understand it.

Because this whole movement (save for a small percentage) grew out of Democrat dissatisfaction with the election of 2000 (which is stupid for reasons that are too complex to even get into right now) how much of those high polling numbers quoted above are a direct result of President Bush’s low approval ratings? I would be willing to bet that if you were to factor out the Bush effect from the polls you quoted above, those numbers would drop to insignificant figures.

It is not surprising that national popular vote is based out of a state like California who is looking for more power and influence over the “backwards” folks of Iowa. The sad thing is that morons like Mike Gronstal play right into their hands. This proposal is bad for small states and it would be a huge step toward losing our democracy. I encourage everyone to write angry letters to Gronstal. Tell him that Iowa’s votes will not be determined by the ignorant sheep that make up California and New York’s electorate (these are the same ingenious people who elected Eliot Spitser, “carpet-bagging” Hillary Clinton and Gray”out” Davis) I don’t exactly trust them to make my decisions for me. Neither should anyone else in Iowa.

[Check Out a New Blog]

Hey, check out this new blog called Doctor's Notes. Go to www.millermeeks.com

[Woodrow Spaur]

David maybe you can have Gronstal explain to you just why would anyone want to come to Iowa if we did a totally stupid plan like hes suggesting.I want to know how he figures why any politician would bother waisting their time here after this would happen. I can see one thing it would reduce the amount of people who would come out and vote why should I vote if the candidate i voted for loses the popular vote my vote is worthless I am ashamed of the district that put this clown in office.