More Constitutional Abuse

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can't be bothered.

There is a movement afoot to make an end-run around the Constitution, and fundamentally change the way our nation elects its President, and the lack of press coverage is astounding.

Buried in the “Northwest Briefly” feature of my morning newspaper earlier this week was a short, 5-sentence article entitled “Gregoire signs popular vote bill.” The bill would require Washington’s 11 electoral votes to be cast for the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of whether that candidate actually won the State of Washington. It wouldn’t take effect until enough states sign onto this mutual suicide pact to account for 270 electoral votes – the number it currently takes to win the Presidency. So far, the compact has been ratified in Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey, as well as Washington.

Let me explain this in terms that even liberal Democrats can understand. Under this scheme, if Barack Obama had won the State of Washington, but John McCain had won the national popular vote, then Washington’s 11 electoral votes would have been taken away from Barack Obama and given to John McCain. It astounds me that, in a state that is so vocal about making sure that every vote counts, our leaders would think it was a good idea to potentially throw out the majority of the votes cast in a Presidential election.

But there are other reasons why this is a bad idea. The Electoral College was one of the many brilliant checks and balances that the founders built into our political system, and, regardless of what you may have heard, it was not designed simply because they didn’t trust the wisdom of the voters. It was created in recognition that the interests of large, populous, industrialized states were not always the same as the interests of smaller, less populated, agricultural states. It was designed to preserve the importance of those smaller states in the election process, so that the Presidency could not be won simply by focusing on a few very large and heavily populated states. That purpose is as valid today as it was in 1790.

In my opinion, this is more evidence of the failure of our educational system to teach our children the basics about our form of government and why the founders made the decisions they made, as well as more evidence of a disregard for the Constitution in general.

Put simply, if you don’t like what the Constitution says, then change it. The founders wisely included a process by which it can be amended. It isn’t easy – because it wasn’t meant to be. But we know the process works, because it has been done 27 times in the last 220 years. Trying to circumvent that process is a hallmark of those who do not have the courage and leadership to stand up and articulate why it should be changed, and convince a sufficient number of their fellow-citizens to agree with them.

Thanks for listening.