A proposal that would allow the “national popular vote” to elect the president is gaining steam, but so are opponents. As the governor of Illinois considers the bill and left-wing lobbyists push it in other states, some governors are standing firm.

In Illinois, the legislation that would give all of that state's Electoral College delegates to the winner of the “national popular vote” is now waiting only for a signature from the governor and for enough states to sign on.

Maryland and New Jersey have already passed the law and other states are considering it. The Washington State Senate just passed it too. The bill has more than 350 sponsors in 47 states, but opponents are standing firm.

Supporters of the idea in Illinois complain that since it is “a safe blue state,” candidates don’t spend time there campaigning. But critics say the bill lacks an understanding of the Electoral College system and why it exists.

It is important to remember that America is a republic based on the rule of law, not a democracy like that which the Founding Fathers so strongly warned against. It is also, after all, a Union of States.

The bill has passed in other states where it was vetoed by governors, like California where it passed both houses but was blocked by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. “This is counter to the tradition of our great nation which honor states rights and the unique pride and identity of each state,” Schwarzenegger said in his veto message, adding that “it disregards the will of a majority of Californians.”

Schwarzenegger has received a great deal of support for stopping the bill despite clashing with conservatives on numerous other issues and being widely criticized as an ‘establishment’ politician.

Left wing supporters haven’t given up even in California though, with a group called ‘FairVote’ issuing a statement in response to the veto saying “we urge the Governor to sign it the next time it reaches his desk.”

The main organization behind the lobbying is called National Popular Vote, Inc. Its proposal would completely end the influence of the Electoral College in electing presidents. Opponents say the ultimate goal is to get rid of the system altogether, despite it having been enshrined in section I of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

“We're just coming along and saying, 'Why not add up the votes of all 50 states and award the electoral votes to the 50-state winner?''' said John Koza, the chairman of National Popular Vote.

States’ delegates would be forced to vote for the national winner of the popular vote, even if the state’s citizens voted for a different candidate.

If and when enough states sign on to control the 270 delegates required for a majority, the deal would take effect and give the presidency to the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement would end if and when the Electoral College was abolished.

Past efforts to abolish the Electoral College by amending the Constitution have failed, but the movement gained steam after Bush took the presidency despite losing the national popular vote. Historically, this has been rare.

The Electoral College, however, serves several important roles including giving smaller states a voice in the presidential election and giving all 50 states the freedom to control the process.

Some legal scholars have also criticized the plot, pointing to Article I, section 10 of the Constitution, which states: “No state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state.”

So far the governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, has not made a decision about whether to sign the law and bind the state’s delegates to the national winner. But, it’s well known that he’s no fan of the Electoral College. While a U.S. Congressman in 2000 he co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to abolish the system completely.

The Electoral College is an important check in America’s unique system of republican government. If there is to be discussion about change it should not be done by abusing the concept of states’ rights to, in the end, further abuse states’ rights.

The Supreme Law of the Land is difficult to amend for a reason, so if supporters insist on fighting this particular institution, they should at least seek change constitutionally: by trying to amend the Constitution.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

delicious | digg | newsvine | technorati