Popular Vote Speculation Interlude
You'll have to forgive me for opening with a joke, but there's been a "song" running through my mind all week. It's from an old comedy routine I heard decades ago, so I have no idea which comedian to credit. The comedian was suggesting new lyrics for our National Anthem, with a practical interpretation based on when we usually actually sing it. So, everyone sing along with me, in your collective heads:
"As we stand here waiting / For the ball game to start..."
Don't know why that's been running through my head... heh. Actually, that's a lie. I'm just as interested as the next pundit in what the Supremes are going to say tomorrow about Obamacare, but I just don't think it's worth talking about here until it happens, that's all. Instead, I'd like to take a summertime flight of electoral fancy.
Once or twice per presidential election, I like to engage in the sheerest of blue-sky speculation about possible interesting outcomes which could happen. Four years ago, I engaged in idle speculation about a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College. This time around, the scenario I've been hearing bandied about is that Barack Obama wins the Electoral College vote, but Mitt Romney wins the popular vote. Barring Supreme Court cases, this would mean a second term for Barack Obama, of course.
In recent history, we've already had one such election, as Al Gore got hundreds of thousands more votes than George W. Bush did. This would merely turn the tables on the 2000 outcome, to put it one way.
The Republicans would certainly howl about such an outcome. It is debatable which side of the political aisle is more effective at such howling (and which side does a better job of such yowling and outrage), but it's fairly certain that we would look back at all the birther nonsense as being a walk in the park compared to what conservatives would be saying about Obama, should this scenario actually play out.
Howling and yowling aside, though, there would likely also be an interesting (and more concrete) effect should Obama win his second term in this fashion -- Republicans would suddenly discover an effort which has been quietly building steam ever since the 2000 election. I speak of the "National Popular Vote" effort.
This organized effort is, at its heart, an end-run around trying to get a constitutional amendment. According to the National Popular Vote organization, this does not mean it is an unconstitutional effort, though (a major distinction worth making).
The idea is simple, at its heart. The Constitution says that each state may allocate its electoral vote as it sees fit. The "NPV" effort aims to convince enough states to change their electoral laws so that whichever candidate wins the national popular vote will be guaranteed the White House.
Nine states, to date, have approved this NPV scheme by passing identical laws. These laws state that the entire delegation of state electors will vote for the nationwide winner of the presidential vote no matter what the actual vote result is in each state. Say you lived in California, for instance. The state votes overwhelmingly for Obama, but when it comes time for the Electoral College to vote, all 55 votes are cast for Mitt Romney (to use the Obama/Romney election as an example).
Be advised, however, that there's a "trigger" built in to this law -- it will not go into effect in any state until enough states have passed the same NPV law so that their electoral votes add up to the 270 Electoral College votes necessary to win the election. So the whole scheme wouldn't come into play until it was actually meaningful (and fair) to the ultimate result.
As you can see, this sort of thing would be much better handled by an actual constitutional amendment which abolished the Electoral College and simply decreed that the national vote was the ultimate arbiter. But since constitutional amendments are almost impossible to get passed, the National Public Vote folks are trying to incrementally build support for the national vote being final.
The problem with this effort -- up until now -- is the unbalanced nature of the states which have passed such laws. The nine states where this is now election law are: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, and Washington D.C. You'll immediately note that these states are mighty blue indeed -- nary a red state among them. Chalk this up to the aftermath of the 2000 election. But also please note that this means that a total of 132 state electoral votes have now signed up for the scheme -- which is roughly half of the 270 needed.
Fast-forward to 2013, when President Obama is sworn in with less than a majority of the popular vote. Among the howling from conservatives, there will likely be an effort to do something about the problem. I can easily see quite a few red Republican states suddenly discovering the NPV effort, and moving legislation in their respective statehouses. If Texas led the way and passed NPV first, then only 100 more electoral votes would be needed to make the plan a reality, to put the situation in perspective.
Move even further forward in time, to the next election where the Electoral College vote didn't match the national popular vote, and we'd be in for one whale of a court fight (which would make Bush v. Gore look tame, indeed).
The interesting thing, however, is if the Obama scenario plays out, and if the National Popular Vote folks get their wish with the addition of a pile of red states (two mighty big "ifs," to be sure) -- the result would be an almost evenly-divided bipartisan effort between blue states and red. This would tend to give it more legitimacy with the public, one assumes. If only blue (or near-blue) states totaling 270 electoral votes passed the NPV law, and then a subsequent election were determined by the scheme, it would look a lot different than if the states were evenly mixed between blue and red.
The truth of the matter is that if we ever did get to the point of having an electoral majority of states pass such a law, then likely the public would be a lot more open to an actual constitutional amendment which solved the problem more simply, by just abolishing the Electoral College once and for all.
But that doesn't stop me from my idle summertime speculation, as we stand here waiting for nine players to take the field (so to speak), and the Obamacare ball game to start.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I love it when circumstances force politicians to show their true colors..
Seeing Republicans fall all over themselves embracing The Popular Vote would be almost as much fun as seeing Democrats fall all over themselves embracing Citizens United... :D
Michale.....
To anyone who wants to witness history in the making online:
http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/
Michale.....
Not sure relying on a national popular vote is such a good idea. The Electoral College was created as a buffer in case the electorate voted for someone truly dangerous since the founders didn't fully trust the wisdom of common people.
Given our own experience that a large percentage of citizens enthusiastically exercise their right to vote, while apparently being certifiably insane, I've come to see their point. On the other hand, since those same people choose the electors to the Electoral College that solution hasn't worked out either.
Hey Michale ... where'd you go?
Hey David ... I'm enjoying the peace and quiet, while it lasts.
Hey David ... I'm enjoying the peace and quiet, while it lasts.
Heheh. I'm not usually one to gloat, but because there was quite a bit of premature celebration on the part of a certain someone, I just have to say ...
Do you have your t-shirt ready, Michale? :)
That is all and I will do my best to refrain from here on out.
-David
In recent history, we've already had one such election, as Al Gore got hundreds of thousands more votes than George W. Bush did.
Not just nationwide: in Florida, more people with the right to vote tried to vote for Gore than Bush. But thanks to the butterfly ballot and the hanging chad, enough of their votes could be thrown out to tip the election.
Oh I am still here... :D Thursday is my Monday after all...
Yea, I still got my shirt, damn you! :D I have to unpack it now. I had it packed in a nice little box, all ready to send to you unworn...
Dammit... :D
But I'll have the last laugh. A little later today when the House makes Holder do the Bi-Partisan Perp Walk.. :D
And in November, when an unprecedented turnout of Righties, Independents and NPAs put the final nail in Obama's Presidency's coffin... :D
Michale....
Oh, don't hold back. :D You definitely have earned the right to gloat.. :D No two ways about that..
Michale.....
"Health Care Should 'Never Be Purchased With Tax Increases On Middle Class Families"
-President Barack Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzs3aoRnl0E&feature=youtu.be
I wonder how many of these former statements by Obama are going to come back and bite him on the arse...
I am thinking... ALL OF THEM... :D
Michale.....
The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/republicans-ruling-focuses-election-obamas-health-/
TWENTY ONE NEW TAXES on people earning less than $250K a year..
TWENTY ONE broken promises from President Obama...
As much as I hate to say it because I don't want to be one of THOSE kinds of losers, but this ruling might be the best thing that could have happened to the GOP...
Michale.....
Yea, I still got my shirt, damn you! :D I have to unpack it now. I had it packed in a nice little box, all ready to send to you unworn...
Heheheh ... where are you going to wear it again?
-David
I am going to wear it at my shop this weekend. I serve about 80-100 customers a day on Sat & Sun, about 70% of which are going to look at me like I am nutz.... :D
Don't worry, you get to watch it live in all it's glory... :D
Michale.....
I am going to wear it at my shop this weekend. I serve about 80-100 customers a day on Sat & Sun, about 70% of which are going to look at me like I am nutz.... :D
LOL ... nice. One thing we'll never be able to say is that you're not a man of your word.
And remember ... you can't tell people you lost a bet ;)
-David
Michale: Oh, don't hold back. :D You definitely have earned the right to gloat.. :D No two ways about that..
I don't know what your bet was, Michale, but O only won two of the four rulings. So maybe you just have to wear half a tee-shirt. Unless, of course, you but that the whole law would be thrown out, in which case I think you're probably gonna have to wear the whole thing.
Just logged on the computer, haven't read the news....
So, anything interesting happen?
[...snerk snerk snerk]
-CW
Chris1962 -
Michale's bet was on the mandate's constitutionality (I volunteered as referee and laid down specifics beforehand).
He's got to wear a pro-Obama shirt at his place of business for a full day and (here's the kicker) CANNOT say why he's wearing it. The only allowable response: "Ask me again tomorrow."
Michale -
See it live? Will there be webcam coverage? Do tell!
OK, that's it. I'm done gloating, but I had to get a little of it off my chest.
I've never even been a fan of the individual mandate, but I have to say I was shocked at the ruling -- more by the fact that Roberts flipped than anything else, really.
-CW
Michale -
Just read the other thread's comments.
The link you posted doesn't seem to work. Maybe because it's an FTP link (the computer type, not the Friday column type)?
I dunno. Anyway, try posting it again, let's see what's wrong and try to fix it....
-CW
Chris: Michale's bet was on the mandate's constitutionality (I volunteered as referee and laid down specifics beforehand).
Uh, the Court ruled that the mandate, under the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That's one of the things the Right won. The only reason CrapCare continues to stand is because Roberts accepted O's on-again-off-again argument that it was a tax. So I think Michale is off the tee-shirt hook.
CW,
It's happened before. I am not sure what context I type in FTP, but it usually doesn't something funky like that.. It has to do with the fact that, in computer'eze FTP is like HTTP...
Perhaps I should type it F.T.P. for Friday Talking Points..
I feel like Kirk in THE PARADISE SYNDROME trying to figure out what sound combination triggered the door to the Obelisk on Miramanee's Planet.. :D
CB,
Uh, the Court ruled that the mandate, under the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That's one of the things the Right won. The only reason CrapCare continues to stand is because Roberts accepted O's on-again-off-again argument that it was a tax. So I think Michale is off the tee-shirt hook.
I haven't read the ruling.. I doubt I could understand it, even if I did..
But I am satisfied that David won... There wasn't a plain english hint of unconstitutionality within the SCOTUS's ruling. At least none that I can see...
While that may have not been the letter of the bet, it WAS the spirit of the bet...
While I think we are ALL equally amazed, I am satisfied that David won...
Michale.....
CW,
See it live? Will there be webcam coverage? Do tell!
Yea, I have a half dozen surveillance cameras in my shop.. I'll open one up to GUESTS and you will be able to see me in all my OBAMA GOT OSAMA glory...
Just keep the fat jokes to a minimum.. I'm a sensitive guy... :D
Michale.....
At least there is a ray of sunshine today....
House holds Holder in contempt over ‘Fast and Furious’ documents
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/house-eric-holder-contempt-vote-fast-furious-probe/
The House makes Holder do the Bi-Partisan Perp Walk... :D
Michale......
It's funny to see the Dems with their "It's Constitutional, Bitches!!"
My response???
"It's a tax, assholes!!"
:D
Michale....
Well, now that it's been established that the Party in power can force the American people to buy ANYTHING.....
I can't wait to see the looks on the faces of the Left when President Romney and a GOP Congress forces all Americans to purchase firearms for their self-defense...
Won't THAT be a hoot, eh!?? :D
Michale......
Yea, I have a half dozen surveillance cameras in my shop.. I'll open one up to GUESTS and you will be able to see me in all my OBAMA GOT OSAMA glory.
That would be awesome indeed.
It's funny to see the Dems with their "It's Constitutional, Bitches!!"
What's amusing to me is seeing liberals defend it so strongly and conservatives against it so strongly when it was once a conservative idea. It's a very up is down, down is up type of a thing.
-David
Michale: But I am satisfied that David won... There wasn't a plain english hint of unconstitutionality within the SCOTUS's ruling. At least none that I can see...
Well, the Court flat-out struck down mandating private-sector purchases under the Commerce Clause, which is the clause under which the law, and the mandate, was passed:
The case challenged the court to fashion a judicially administrable principle that limits Congress’s power to act on the mere pretense of regulating interstate commerce. At least Roberts got the court to embrace emphatic language rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale for penalizing the inactivity of not buying insurance:
“The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. .?.?. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. .?.?. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him.”
If the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court would have decisively construed this clause so permissively as to give Congress an essentially unlimited police power — the power to mandate, proscribe and regulate behavior for whatever Congress deems a public benefit. Instead, the court rejected the Obama administration’s Commerce Clause doctrine. The court remains clearly committed to this previous holding: “Under our written Constitution .?.?. the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace....”http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-supreme-court-gives-conservatives-a-consolation-prize/2012/06/28/gJQAWyhY9V_print.html
The only reason CrapCare continues to stand is because Roberts accepted that congress COULD have passed the law under their taxation powers. The weird thing about the ruling, however, was that congress specifically didn't do that, specifically because they would never have been able to get their BlueDogs aboard a raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class bill.
INTERESTING how Roberts ignored that, accepted it as a tax, and dumped CrapCare back in O's lap. LOL. Think about that.
Congress passes laws. It does not pass doctrines of judicial construction. The Court upheld the part of the law that the bet referred to, even if they did it under a different doctrine than counsel for the administration argued for.
Stop trying to get Michale to renege.
Congress passes laws.
Yeah, and as the law stood, under the commerce clause, it was deemed unconstitutional. Roberts took it upon himself to then conclude that if it HAD been a tax, instead, congress WOULD HAVE been within its constitutional authority to "mandate" it. Therefore, it MAY be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.