05 March 2006
Count ‘Em
Hendrik Hertzberg makes a few erroneous assumptions in his article in the March 6, 2006, New Yorker. First, and foremost, is the implication that the U.S. Constitution provides that the President of the United States should be elected by its people. In fact, the Constitution stipulates that the States shall select the President according to a system that deliberately favors constituencies with fewer voters over larger constituencies. Finessing this stipulation will certainly require an amendment to the Constitution. Moreover, it is hard to believe that a group of states including Texas, Ohio and Florida plus the majority of small states will agree to the strategy espoused by the Campaign for a National Popular Vote for circumventing the Electoral College.
Other mistakes in Mr. Hertzberg’s article include the following:
1. The benefits of the Electoral College system are an issue of states rights, not of partisan politics.
2. Ours is not a “democratic order;” the success of the U.S. system depends on the health of America’s federal order.
3. American Presidential campaigns were never truly national; they were always intended to be state-by-state.
4. Neither party could be sure of preserving its lock on one-half of a two-party system; national popular elections would very likely have as their unintended consequence the proliferation of numerous small parties.
5. The final month of Presidential elections in a “national” voting system would be fought not in battleground states, but in high population markets, defined by the size of their television and radio audiences.
6. Size would matter a great deal in a “national” voting system, making it not at all surprising that Mr. Hertzberg’s view is published in The New Yorker.
The National Popular Vote plan advocated in Mr. Hertzberg’s article would lead to a rivalry in U.S. government between a popularly elected President and a state-biased Congress. The tendencies toward gridlock in getting work done in Washington are already strong enough. We may indeed need to have a voice for the people in national affairs that can actually take initiatives. The models of Proposition voting in California and other states may offer guidance for using the Internet or another vehicle to exercise direct popular control of government actions on an issue-by-issue basis. The key to success of this strategy will be preserving the autonomy of local governments—protecting their role in implementing popular will on matters of citizen concern.
Hendrik Hertzberg makes a few erroneous assumptions in his article in the March 6, 2006, New Yorker. First, and foremost, is the implication that the U.S. Constitution provides that the President of the United States should be elected by its people. In fact, the Constitution stipulates that the States shall select the President according to a system that deliberately favors constituencies with fewer voters over larger constituencies. Finessing this stipulation will certainly require an amendment to the Constitution. Moreover, it is hard to believe that a group of states including Texas, Ohio and Florida plus the majority of small states will agree to the strategy espoused by the Campaign for a National Popular Vote for circumventing the Electoral College.
Other mistakes in Mr. Hertzberg’s article include the following:
1. The benefits of the Electoral College system are an issue of states rights, not of partisan politics.
2. Ours is not a “democratic order;” the success of the U.S. system depends on the health of America’s federal order.
3. American Presidential campaigns were never truly national; they were always intended to be state-by-state.
4. Neither party could be sure of preserving its lock on one-half of a two-party system; national popular elections would very likely have as their unintended consequence the proliferation of numerous small parties.
5. The final month of Presidential elections in a “national” voting system would be fought not in battleground states, but in high population markets, defined by the size of their television and radio audiences.
6. Size would matter a great deal in a “national” voting system, making it not at all surprising that Mr. Hertzberg’s view is published in The New Yorker.
The National Popular Vote plan advocated in Mr. Hertzberg’s article would lead to a rivalry in U.S. government between a popularly elected President and a state-biased Congress. The tendencies toward gridlock in getting work done in Washington are already strong enough. We may indeed need to have a voice for the people in national affairs that can actually take initiatives. The models of Proposition voting in California and other states may offer guidance for using the Internet or another vehicle to exercise direct popular control of government actions on an issue-by-issue basis. The key to success of this strategy will be preserving the autonomy of local governments—protecting their role in implementing popular will on matters of citizen concern.
Comments:
Post a Comment
