Your Arlington, your views

Representative Brownsberger in an earlier blog defended his “NO” vote on National Popular Vote. This bill passed in both the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Senate by lop-sided margins, but still needs final approval by the State Senate before it can go to the Governor for his signature.

Representative Brownsberger’s explanation of the bill, and the process it puts in place to assure that the candidate receiving the most votes nationwide is elected President, is excellent. However, he states he voted against it because of a number of concerns. I don’t think his concerns really stand up when examined more thoroughly.

First, he is “frightened by the possibility of a deviant regional candidate – a George Wallace….” being elected in a 3-way race. He is also concerned that there is no run-off mechanism in this bill in case none of the candidates wins an absolute majority.

Representative Brownsberger may not have looked at gubernatorial elections where the “most votes wins rule” works well. It works well simply because it encourages broad coalitions, like we have with our 2 major parties. By way of contrast under our current system of electing the President, independent or minor party candidates have affected the outcome in 6 out of the last 15 elections. Think Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. Both of them influenced their respective Presidential races. Under National Popular Vote, with a single nationwide pool of voters, there would be the same strong incentive that exists in gubernatorial elections for our 2 major parties to decide the outcome.

Regarding the need for a run-off mechanism, we have never felt the need for a successful candidate to win an absolute majority. Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 with only 43% of the popular vote. In both 1996 and 2000, the winner had less than 50% of the votes cast.

Representative Brownsberger also is concerned that National Popular Vote’s compact among states to award all of their electors to the winner of the national vote is an insufficiently “robust” system for the election of the President. The Constitution explicitly grants states the right to choose their electors as they see fit. If a state agrees to award its electors to the winner of the national vote rather than the winner of the state vote, that is perfectly within its constitutional authority. Will this interstate compact be challenged in the courts? Absolutely. But, time and again the courts have recognized interstate compacts as legally enforceable contractual obligations authorized by the U.S. Constitution. Just because NPV will be challenged is no reason to reject it.

The Representative pooh-poohs the idea that our current system pays too much attention to swing states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Yet, candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just 5 or 6 swing states. Since National Popular Vote assures that every vote counts whether it’s cast in a big state or a small state, a red state or a blue state, candidates will have to run a full
50-state campaign. For them to ignore more than 60% of the states, as they do now, would be disastrous.

It is a travesty of justice and everything we stand for to allow a cockamamie system like we have today prevent the election of a President that is the choice of the people. To tout a “states rights” argument at this time in our history overlooks everything that’s happened since 1863. In his Gettysburg Address that year, President Lincoln talked about the kind of government we want to have and should have. It is a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”. Look how we have expanded “the people” in our elections since then: former slaves in 1868, women in 1920, 18-year olds in 1971. National Popular Vote is the way to truly recognize the voice of all eligible voters across the land. We should all support it.

Much as I respect Representative Brownsberger, I’m afraid he voted the wrong way on National Popular Vote.

Dick Terry
20 Peabody Rd.
Arlington, MA