Will Texas Legislators Drink the Kool-Aid?
By Tara Ross
Texas Insider Report: AUSTIN Texas Perhaps you wouldnt expect Texas to join an effort to eliminate the Electoral College. In fact you may find such an idea to be ludicrous and a bit far-fetched.
Unfortunately a California-based group is working hard to prove you wrong. Indeed its proponents are in the state today making a pitch to the legislatures House Committee on Elections. They want Texas to join an anti-Electoral College effort that has already been approved by six states and the District of Columbia.
National Popular Vote is practically guaranteed to tell Texass largely conservative Republican legislature that its end-run around the Constitution is good for the Republican Party. Unfortunately
some Republicans in other states have fallen for it hook line and sinker. Others
fell for the line at first but then learned more and
began to see that the Emperor has no clothes. Heres hoping that Texas legislators will see through the ruse right from the beginning.
NPV asks state legislators to change the way that their states allocate presidential electors. Instead of giving them to the winner of a states popular vote electors would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote. So for instance Texass thirty-four electors would have gone to Barack Obama in 2008 despite the fact that John McCain won by a landslide within our own borders.
If enough states were to agree to such a method of elector allocation the Electoral College would be effectively eliminated all without the bother of a constitutional amendment.
This probably sounds like a crazy liberal idea that could only succeed in places like Massachusetts and California. It probably should be but NPV has more political savvy
than that. It saw the writing on the wall last November: The emergence of the Tea Party as a political force convinced NPV to reconstitute itself.
It now claims to be good for conservatives and good for Republicans. NPV describes its plan as pro-states rights pro-federalism and consistent with an originalist reading of the Constitution. Why to listen to them describe it youd think the Founding Fathers practically expected states to do something like this eventually.
Yes these would be the same Founders who explicitly rejected the idea of a direct national election for President as proposed by NPV. Obviously something doesnt quite add up.
But NPV is
hoping no one digs too deep or researches the issue too thoroughly. Otherwise Republicans might start to wonder how NPVs bill jibes with respect for the Constitution. Democrats might start to wonder why NPV is talking out of both sides of its mouth:
It tells Democrats that NPV is a progressive measure that will update the Constitution democratize American presidential elections and consolidate political power in Democratic-leaning urban areas.
But it tells Republicans that NPV is good for a center-right country that values the Founders wisdom; it will help the GOP to recapture the White House.
More research would show members of
both political parties that the Electoral College serves everyone.
- It has a long and successful history of serving Americans in a non-partisan fashion.
- It ensures that the most successful presidential candidates are those who in the spirit of FDR and Ronald Reagan reach out to a wide variety of voters.
- It brings Americans together encouraging us to focus on moderation and compromisemany other systems would instead drive us apart.
- It provides stability and certainty in presidential elections: It is harder to steal elections when you must predict in advance which state will be close and where stolen votes will matter.
- Finally more research would show legislators the many dangerous legal and logistical problems created by NPVs plan.
NPV has been introduced in the Texas legislature before. It was not taken seriously then and it should not be taken seriously now simply because NPV has changed its tune and will
be trying to sell the measure as a conservative Tea Party measure.
States Representatives on the House Committee on Elections would act wisely if they treat the plan for what it is:
An idea that is at odds with the lessons of history and inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Tara Ross is the author of
Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.
