|
Centuries-old debate of Electoral College vs.
popular vote comes before state Legislature
By Rep. Dan
Kristiansen and Rep. Kirk Pearson
When our nation's founding
fathers met in Philadelphia in 1787 to draft a new U.S. Constitution,
they deadlocked on how the president should be chosen.
James Madison argued
against having the Congress choose the president, believing it would
leave the chief executive “under the influence of an improper
obligation” to the Congress. Another proposal had the president elected
by a direct popular vote. This was rejected because of concerns that the
president would be decided by the largest, most populous states.
A compromise was reached
using a system from Roman times -- the Electoral College. Under this
system, each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to its
representation in Congress. Electors meet in their respective state
capitals in December of each presidential election year to cast their
votes for president. They are the ones who actually elect the president.
In Washington, we have 11 electors -- nine who represent each of our
state's nine congressional districts, and two chosen at large.
Some 220 years later, the
debate has shifted to state legislatures, including our own, with a new
campaign to create a national popular vote method of electing the
president. Rather than attempting the difficult process of amending the
U.S. Constitution, the proposal makes an end run around the Electoral
College. The "National Popular Vote" (NPV) campaign calls on state
legislatures to pass a measure dictating all electoral votes from that
state go to the winner of the national popular vote.
The measure would go into
effect only if enough states approve it to represent a majority of the
electoral votes. In other words, if states that represent at least 270
of the 538 electoral votes approve the measure, the winner of the
popular vote nationwide would win the presidency. This renders the
Electoral College moot without eliminating it.
Four states have enacted
the NPV bill. The measure has been introduced in Washington through
Senate Bill 5599. It has passed the Senate and is now under
consideration in the House.
Proponents argue that the
Electoral College system is archaic. They say candidates could win the
popular vote but still not become president if they lose the electoral
vote.
Opponents have the same
concerns of Alexander Hamilton, Electoral College architect, who noted
if too much power were afforded to one majority, the result would be a
corrupt government with a president who would let others rule him. They
also worry the vote of rural America would be lost to metropolitan areas
such as New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. We also share those concerns.
Imagine how voters would
feel if our state’s Electoral College votes were given to a candidate
who did not receive the majority of votes within Washington. If we were
to join the NPV agreement, it's possible our state would be forced to
deliver its electoral votes to a presidential candidate who had little
support within Washington and represented positions contrary to the
needs of Washingtonians. We believe rural voters already have experience
with such feelings, because in statewide elections, candidates winning
the vote in only a handful of urban counties have carried the election,
leading to feelings of disenfranchisement in our rural areas.
The wisdom of our founding
fathers has carried us far. We must uphold the U.S. Constitution -- not
make an end run around it. As George Washington warned, "resist with
care the spirit of innovation upon [the Constitution's] principals" and
be suspicious of "mere hypothesis and opinion [that expose the
Constitution] to perpetual change."
# # #
EDITOR'S NOTE:
Rep. Dan Kristiansen, R-Snohomish,
and Rep. Kirk Pearson, R-Monroe, represent the 39th Legislative
District. Kristiansen may be reached at (360) 786-7967 and Pearson can be
contacted at (360) 786-7816.
For more information, contact:
John
Sattgast, Senior Information Officer: (360) 786-7257
|