As Pace Struggles, CTA Claims "No Major Delays" After Doomsday Day One
CTA Doomsday Schedule: Day 2
Calumet Fisheries Wins James Beard Award
How To: Roast a Chicken (If You're an Idiot)
30 Percent Chance Of Hailey
Yesterday Rod Blagojevich signed legislation that puts Illinois into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV). Illinois joins Maryland and New Jersey as the only three states have signed the legislation. Participating states agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement doesn't take effect until enough states join to total 270 electoral votes - the number needed to win the presidency. In the event of a tie, the current system would be used. NPV doesn't require a state to amend its constitution, but it does require that states join the compact by adopting it as a state law.
The General Assembly passed the legislation earlier this year, and it's no surprise that Blagojevich signed it into law - given his support of a constitutional amendment scrapping the electoral college during his time in congress. "By signing this law, we in Illinois are making it clear that we believe every voter has an equal voice in electing our nation's leaders," Blagojevich said in a statement. "I'm proud Illinois is leading the way by joining this landmark compact that will help shape our democracy in to (the) future."
Critics argue that NPV reduces the influence of smaller states in presidential races, and that a close vote would require a national recount, rather than one or two local recounts."This kind of legislation makes sense really for any state, but particularly for the two-thirds of the states that are left out of the presidential campaign," said John R. Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote Inc, the organization behind the proposed reform.
Image via runjenrun01
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
what's your take on this, kevin?
if it reduces the influence of smaller states, i'm all for it. most of those redneck states priorities are totally backwards
I am of the school "Don't Fuck with The Constitution", it has worked great for a long time, the electoral college was created for a reason etc, etc. Knee jerk reactions to partisan issues are always a terrible idea and end up backfiring BAD. See: Term Limit amendment after FDR.
So, fuck this. I think that this should have been a proposition voted on by Illinoisians, not some scheme cooked up by our legislature.
And, why should the national vote subvert the will of the people of sovereign states? Hate. This.
As I've pointed out previously, this probably doesn't pass constitutional muster, though we won't know until a sufficient number of states pass it. It subverts the second article of the Constitution by rendering the other states' electors' votes irrelevant.
I don't often do this, but I agree with Spav. The electoral college system is the perfect system -- the weight each state is given toward electing the country's president is directly proportional to its representation in the legislative branch in the federal government. (The only change we ought to be making in this regard is giving Washington, DC two representatives and a senator, the sole and completely egregious exception.)
Shifting to a national vote would further subvert and erode the rights of each state as granted in the Constitution. Campaigning would become even more isolated than it is -- without each state carrying its own weight, candidates would never have reason to leave the most densely populated areas.
Oops, I meant to say "two senators and a representative." =D
I'd be much happier if each state just awarded electoral votes proportionately to the state's popular vote.
I'm with Spav for the most part.
Absent an amendment, stick with what we have. And to get that amendment would require a meaningful and lengthy debate about federalism and the real and ideal nature of a republic in the 21st century, both good issues to consider for all of us. I would welcome such a debate.
This move stems mainly from emotional scars of the 2000 race, not logical policy.
This move stems mainly from emotional scars of the 2000 race, not logical policy.
Exactly. What people don't seem to realize is that before 2000, a losing candidate won the popular vote three separate times.
The 2000 election was one of only a couple elections in US history that came that close. The closest comparison was the election of 1800, in which two acrimonious political parties tore the country asunder with slanderous campaigns and while the system buckled and stressed. The end result? The country held together, Thomas Jefferson was elected, the world did not end.
Every 200 years or so isn't a bad rate of crisis.
I will say though, that I am for changing the constitution when it needs it. It is not sacred writ, but a living, breathing document. An end to Slavery, suffrage for women, the right of 18 year olds to vote, are all good changes to that old piece of parchment.
I am just saying, I am cool on ending Slavery, but for fuck's sake, the 14th amendment was like a Pandora's Box of rights giving. "Due Process"?! Who wrote that?! Seriously, who wrote the Reconstruction Amendments. The language used in the 14th amendment is the basis for like every criminal appeal. Who would have thought. It is a serious thing to jank with the Constitution and these states in this idiotic pact are taking it too lightly.
without each state carrying its own weight, candidates would never have reason to leave the most densely populated areas.
Of course as it is now they spend all their time courting people in 'swing states'.
Tilda: I agree with you. Are you comfortable with each state deciding how their vote counts (if it is debated)or should the US decide as a country how their vote counts?
I do not recall ever reading about this issue in Illinois, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention. If I remember correctly, California did have a referendum on how the electoral college delegates would be chosen--which is a different issue, but at least the people of the state decided.
@Spav:
For the most part, I agree with you (After perusing Youtube and watching "Idiocracy", I'm beginning to think "What's Popular" isn't equal to "What's Good"), but to play Devil's Advocate:
Did the amendment to allow popular election of senators subvert democracy? I just think it was a step from a republic to a real democracy.
There is no way this is constitutional. Glad to see the General Assembly is wasting their time.