RNC Supports Constitution, Electoral College

The twentieth century Progressives managed to advance the cause of direct democracy by open confrontation. They pushed the cause of direct election of United States Senators, thereby diminishing the power of the states to have their own deliberative body to counter-balance the "people's" House of temporary majorities. But they did so up-front, and passed the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Their twenty-first century successors are far more reticent about taking their case directly to the people over another attack on the independent power of the states. Direct democracy advocates now want to end-run the Constitutional provision of election of the President by the states as set forth in Article II. That impediment to direct democracy is the Electoral College. A number of states have entered into interstate compacts which would require that a given state's electoral votes must be given to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote, regardless of how that state's voters actually voted.

That is not only an attack on the balance the Founders set up between the whole people and the sovereign states, but it is also questionably democratic. If the people of State A vote for Candidate X, but the other interstate compact states B, C, D and E vote for Candidate Y, how is it democratic to nullify the votes of the people of State A by giving their electoral votes to the candidate who lost the vote in State A?

Over the past century, there have been multiple attempts to amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College. All have failed, most at very early stages. "The Electoral College is anti-democratic," say the abolitionists. Well, no, it isn't. It is anti-direct democracy. The state electors are selected based on which candidate wins that state. In some states, the electors are bound completely by the will of the majority of the state's voters ("winner take all"), in others proportional electors or "individual conscience" are permitted by state statute. None of these methods conflict with the basic constitutional mandate of election of the President by the states, subject to the rules and will of the people who vote in the respective states and the final vote in the Electoral College.

The Founders believed a true republic could survive only if there were balances between the big cities and the rural areas, the populous states and the sparsely-populated states, the will of the whole people and the independence of the states. The Electoral College was a product of that balancing process. On rare occasion, the votes of the Electoral College resulted in the candidate with the smaller number of popular votes winning the presidential election. But it also means that the votes of the people of each individual state went to the candidate who won in that state.

As an opponent of direct democracy, a believer in the wisdom of the Founders, a fan of republican balance between the will of the people and the independence of the states, and an oppressed Californian, I must dolefully report that California has recently joined the direct democracy movement as it relates to election of the President. The largest single bloc of electoral votes could now conceivably go to the candidate who lost the popular vote in the state. At least that's true if the compact is finally approved by other interested states and survives a constitutional test at the United States Supreme Court.

To its eternal credit, the RNC last week loudly denounced this latest stealth attack on our republican form of government. Would it be redundant to say that the republic was supported by the Republicans? The "progressive" attempt to thwart the clear intention of the Constitution is commonly called the National Popular Vote initiative. With the exception of one RNC member who voted "present," the entire RNC opposed the initiative.

So many members of the Committee were adamantly opposed to the initiative that the leaders had to limit time for speeches to ten minutes per member. Most addressed the issue first, then the fact that pro-initiative types had been reporting that Republicans in the state legislatures were leaning toward support of the initiative. The speakers were not happy campers, and there were dozens of them. There was also a rumor that at least 20 members of the voting RNC were in favor of the initiative.

Prior to the meeting, RNC member Saul Anuzis of Michigan had expressed tepid support for the initiative, along with a small group of his companions. Anuzis and the others quickly realized that they were about to be singled out for direct attack, and modified their positions before the speeches. Anuzis later told reporters that the small group changed their position because they were not willing to take any hits for something they didn't care that much about in the first place. It had become apparent that their opponents cared a great deal.

Anuzis remained unrepentant, however. Rather than take a principled (if incorrect) position on the initiative, he raced for a plane out of town while concluding his public remarks by saying that "[the initiative] is now on everyone's radar and that's good." In other words, as soon as he gets to a place of apparent safety and finds himself in a much less tenuous minority, he will semi-renounce his vote and lukewarmly support the initiative for some inexplicable political gain.

Historically, I should point out that here in California, the first subtle move to undermine the Electoral College happened decades back. When I first proudly cast my vote at age 22 (18 year olds weren't allowed to vote yet), the ballot required the voter to vote for the "Electors pledged to Lyndon Johnson" or "Electors pledged to Barry Goldwater." Today, the ballot doesn't mention Electors at all. Cast your vote directly for a candidate.