Call today about AB 751: Elimination of Electoral College Bill - Correction
But don't feel like you have been asleep at the wheel, the bill was only just introduced 2 days ago on Monday, Feb. 15, 2010. Also on Monday, they announced the Public Hearing for today, Wednesday, Feb. 17th at 1pm.
Think they are trying to ram this one through below the radar? (I heard Vicki mention it yesterday. She also talked about it today in her first 45 minutes. Do listen to the first hour for Wed. Feb 17. I then Googled the bill number and found WVCY's Homefront blog page on it.)
The actual bill proposes "entering into an agreement among the states to elect the president of the United States by means of a national popular vote."
Now at first blush, that might not seem like a bad idea, to just count the popular vote. But think about it. If popular vote alone decided elections, the most population dense states would dictate who our president is. The top 3 states being California, New York and Texas. Urban areas would decide for us all. Even if you factor in the top 10 states, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, etc. Wisconsin is still not a player. So what about the other 40 states in the Union?
If this change goes through, why would any presidential candidate bother coming to Wisconsin?
An even more insidious aspect of this bill is that it calls for a Constitutional Convention (CORRECTION: it doesn't, but it does sidestep the Constitution amendment process. See bottom of post.) to make the change from the Electoral College to Popular Vote. (More on that below the legislator info.)
CALL YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE! Find your State Legislator
Ask them how this would help Wisconsin residents have any voice in presidential politics?
Brookfield's Representatives: Rich Zipperer (608) 266-5120 and Leah Vukmir (608) 266-9180
List of Representatives on the Committee of Elections and Campaign Reform: (From Homefront)
Rep. Jeff Smith (Chair) 1-888-534-0093
Counting only the popular vote flies in the face of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who realized they had to balance the influence of densely populated states with those of less population. That is why we have a House of Representatives, whose membership is based on population, balanced by the Senate, that gives every state the same number of representatives. In a similar way, the Popular Vote is balanced by the Electoral College.
As I mentioned above, this bill would call for a Constitutional Convention (Correction: it doesn't but sidesteps the Constitutional amendment process) to make the change from the Electoral College to Popular Vote.
I still remember my high school American History teacher's warning about Constitutional Conventions. (My opinion on this goes way back!) She cautioned that once they are called, anything goes; it is all open to change, even the Bill of Rights!
This is what Eagle Forum says about Con Cons or Constitutional Conventions (Read the whole piece, it is worth your time. My emphasis is in red): "The trouble with a Con Con is that there are no rules in the Constitution or in any law to limit a Con Con's purpose, procedure, agenda, or election of delegates. Congress has repeatedly rejected bills to establish rules or procedures. There is no way to control a Con Con in advance or to require it to consider only one subject. The Article V provision that authorizes the calling of a Con Con refers to considering "amendments" (note the plural)."
I am trying to find the exact quote* about calling a Constitutional Convention, but it went something like this: Why would I exchange the wisdom of our Founding Fathers for those in the Congress today? Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of a Constitutional Convention? They can't even stick to our written Constitution. Make those calls!
UPDATE: This afternoon, I spoke to Diana Cieslak of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (she is DianaC in comments). She said that National Popular Vote doesn't call for ANY change to the Constitution, but it does sidestep the traditional Constitutional amendment process. The theory is that eventually the Constitution would need to be amended if enough states adopt this measure.
She also said that if enough states, totaling 270 electoral votes adopt National Popular Vote, then the Interstate Compact clause in the Constitution would go into effect and they could agree to a National Popular Vote winner, usurping your state's popular vote regardless if your state passes this or not--italics are my words.
Diana directed me to a piece she wrote last year: Electoral College or NPV It answers a lot of questions about the Electoral College and National Popular Vote.
Save Our States Director, Trent England, was in Madison today talking to legislators about the dangers of NPV.
More reading: Save Our States: "Wisconsin would lose big time!" under National Popular Vote
Badger Blogger: Not just no...
Don't Knock the Electoral College
Beware of Attacks on the Constitution
Proposed Legislation Can Circumvent Vote of Wisconsin Residents
*Mark Levin, a Constitutional Lawyer, mentioned that quote some weeks ago.
NOTE OF INTEREST: I was curious about kohler's many l-o-n-g comments on my Practically Speaking blog, so I Googled kohler National Public Vote. I found many of the same comments with kohler's name on Badger Blogger's piece, Topix - Brattleboro Reformer, Vermont's piece: National Popular Vote is a bad idea that hurts Vermont (on that paper's site it states kohler, Mountain View, CA), and on many others. I guess he really wants this change? I don't know...I just found that interesting.
Links: Practically Speaking, Betterbrookfield, RandyMelchert, Jay Weber, Vicki McKenna, The Right View Wisconsin, CNS News, Mark Levin, Breitbart BigGovernment, The Heritage Foundation