Blog

Electoral College Map – Senator Harr and others would eliminate

One of our members sent us a copy of the letter he wrote to Nebraska District 21 Senator Ken Harr, who introduced the very ill-advised LB583 “Adopt the Interstate Compact on the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Popular National Vote” (If you prefer to read the bill online without downloading the PDF file, please click HERE.)

Dear Senator Haar,

I saw the article in the Journal Star detailing your attempt to negate the Electoral College without amending the US Constitution, in the belief that doing so will increase Nebraska’s influence on the national scene. I believe implementation of your bill will actually have the opposite effect, and as a result is not good for Nebraska. In fact, under your proposal, my inclination would be to not waste my time casting a presidential vote, since my vote will be simply negated by those cast in the most populous states. I also noted that, according to the article, the impetus for introducing this bill seems to come from out-of-state lobbyists. Do you have any constituents who are desirous of this legislation, and if so, are they informed as to the history and purpose behind the Electoral College? As a contractor, I am always hesitant to discard parts the purpose of which I don’t thoroughly understand.

I am attaching a well-researched article written shortly after the year 2000 presidential election that addresses the purpose of the Electoral College, the rationale and history behind it, and its’ affect on balancing the interests of individual voters and the influence of large versus small population states. It is long, but well worth the read. Below, I have included the body of of the article if you prefer to read it within this message.

My hope is that before proceeding further with an attempted end run around the Electoral College, you will take the time to further research it, and also pass along this information to any interested constituents, so that they might be fully informed in advocating such a major change.

Note that I’ve included a link to the Lincoln Journal Star article to which the writer refers. The story emphasizes that the out-of-towners pushing this whole idea are Republicans. I actually appreciate this emphasis; it’s yet another reminder for some of us; the GOP has not come close to having the necessary “Come to Jesus” moment it’d better have soon. For GOP voters who are still happily telling themselves the charade they see is reality, perhaps it’ll wake them up for once and all.

Linda had taken a look at this proposal’s substance sometime in the past year. As she points out, there is a solid case to be made that this proposal is unconstitutional. Although the Constitution, in Article II states, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”, there are compelling reasons why it would still not pass muster. (Muster is my word, not Linda’s. I’m sure she would say it much more accurately and eloquently.)

The article referenced by the letter writer can be read HERE. It is a truly comprehensive overview of the subject, explaining the history and providing answers for every conceivable challenge that has arisen against it.

As the article points out:

Such an amendment would eliminate several extensive parts of the Constitution, including Article II, Section 1, 2, 4, and portions of the 12th, the 20th, and the 23rd Amendments.

Such extensive changes to our Constitution obviously requires an amendment.

Such a fundamental change is a move towards democracy and away from a republic. As David Barton’s article points out:

“In fact, the Constitution is so anti-democratic that it contains explicit provisions forbidding America from becoming a democracy, requiring instead that she maintain herself as a republic.” [ Note: see Article IV, Section 4]

Those who do not respect the Constitution believe they can change it by other means, such as the end-run method now in motion in the Unicameral.

Senator Ken Haar and anyone else who wishes to change the way we elect a President, who wish to have a pure democracy rather than a republic, and who believe such Constitutional provisions as the Electoral College are “outdated”, need to make their case publicly and openly and then use the procedure provided by the Constitution to change it.

Please contact your own Senator and Senator Ken Haar and respectfully let them know your opinion about his participation in the efforts to change the Constitution without doing it properly.

Nebraska Senators’ contact information can be found on this Nebraska Legislature page. If you would like further information regarding how to find out who your Senator is, please click HERE.

Additional information and resources:

Barton’s article points how the range of debate at the Constitutional convention regarding how a President would be elected. The site, Teaching American History, has a very well organized structure for studying the Constitutional Convention, providing summaries based on date, “major themes”, and more. In addition to Madison’s notes there is also selected correspondence between delegates and those not present.

My favorite book on this subject is Miracle in Philadelphia by Catherine Drinker Bowen.

A very enlightening document on the subject is Federalist No. 39. James Madison describes a republican form of government and then details the character of the government ultimately solidified by our Constitution.