Kevin Bryant

By John Ryder ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The proposal by some fellow Republicans for a “national popular vote (NPV) compact” is an example of what H.L. Mencken meant when he said, “For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, clear and wrong.”

The compact would subvert the Constitution by changing how we elect our president. Instead of forthrightly seeking to amend the Constitution by abolishing the Electoral College, the proposal bypasses the Constitution by creating a compact among some states that would bind all states.

Under the plan, the electoral votes of a state would be committed to the slate that is the “national popular vote winner” regardless of the vote within the state.

The Electoral College is part of an elaborate mechanism designed by the Founders to create interdependent centers of power, each balancing the excesses of the others. The Constitution balances the competing elements of our Republic: The membership of the House of Representatives is based on population. The Senate is based on equal representation by state.

This design balances the interests of large and small states.

The Electoral College mirrors this arrangement by giving each state electoral votes equal to its membership in the House plus its two Senators. Thus, California gets 55 electoral votes because of its large population, but no state, even Delaware, has fewer than three electoral votes. It reflects the Founders’ compromise between large states and small states and between electing the president by Congress and electing the president directly by the people.

Bypassing the Electoral College through the proposed compact undermines that balance by effectually erasing states’ boundaries along with those states’ sovereignty.

On a practical level, the Constitution requires a successful candidate to assemble a winning coalition across a broad geographic spectrum, embracing both large and small states, rather than a narrow concentration of votes.

A popular vote, in contrast, does not require the candidate to have broad appeal. It would make it possible for a candidate to win without any majority but merely a plurality of the popular vote. The compact would require the states to determine the candidate with the “largest national popular vote” – not a majority. Thus, in a multicandidate race, the “largest national popular vote” could be obtained by a regional candidate with just 35 percent or 40 percent of the popular vote.

Under such an arrangement, presidential candidates would have no incentive to campaign anywhere except the major media markets in a few states. The country would, in essence, cede our presidential elections to the largest metropolitan areas, whose concerns are different from those of other areas of the country.

NPV would maximize the rewards of vote fraud in those large metropolitan areas. Under the Electoral College, an illegal vote only affects the outcome in one state; under the popular vote compact, an illegal vote would affect the national outcome.

What is illegal voting? Laws and procedures vary. In some states, convicted felons can vote while still in prison; in others, they must complete their sentence and apply for reinstatement.

Our system has proved remarkably stable for more than 200 years. Ours is the world’s second-oldest written Constitution, after Iceland’s. That is remarkably long for a governmental structure. Only the Civil War mars our record of political stability, but the breakdown in the system in 1861 did not occur because of the Electoral College.
The American Bar Association once called the Electoral College “archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous and dangerous.” These adjectives describe virtues of our constitutional system, not faults. It is archaic – not obsolete – and still serves us well. It is supposed to be undemocratic, to protect smaller states from tyranny by a few large states. We are a republic, not a democracy.

The complexity of the system prevents wild swings in popular sentiment from becoming wild swings in policy. It is ambiguous only in that it is subtle rather than simplistic. If it is dangerous, the alternative of NPV, with the voters of a few states binding the voters of the rest of the states, is much more dangerous.

The late New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said of an earlier proposal to do away with the Electoral College: “It is the most radical transformation in our constitutional system that has ever been considered.” Our constitutional method of electing presidents, balancing the state and federal governments, has served our nation well. It would be foolish and disingenuous to bypass the written Constitution, nominally keeping the Electoral College but nullifying its function.

• John Ryder is a Republican National Committee member from Tennessee.

These thoughts are in honor of Clifford W. Bryant, who ingrained in us the dangers of spending what you don’t have.

Proverbs 22:7 The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.

The Hill: DeMint creates litmus test for 2012 field By Michael O’Brien

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) threatened to withhold his support for Republican presidential candidates unless they sign a pledge requiring fiscal reforms in exchange for raising the debt limit.

The conservative senator announced his support of the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” Pledge during a speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference on Friday and said a drive for support would begin in earnest next week.

The pledge, crafted by several conservative groups, would have signatories vow to oppose raising the debt limit unless three conditions are met: 1. Substantial cuts in spending (Cut), 2. Enforceable spending caps (Cap), and 3. Congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment (Balance).

“I’m telling every presidential candidate, if your name isn’t on this list, don’t come see me,” DeMint said.

Support from the South Carolina senator will be especially coveted by White House contenders, both for the boost in a key primary state and because of his status as a conservative icon within the GOP. DeMint challenged House and Senate candidates to sign the pledge, too.

DeMint’s website already lists the names of some House and Senate lawmakers and a pair of congressional candidates who’ve signed. But he appears poised to push the pledge on Republican presidential candidates in such a way that it could become a litmus test for not only conservatives, but also Democrats who may want to use the pledge against GOP contenders.

It was a small victory on Tuesday 06.21.11 for fiscal sanity on what should have been a no brainer. There are three identical local bills on the Senate Calendar: S. 877 (Hampton 2), H. 4149 (Colleton), & S. 785 (Florence 4).

These bills allow school districts to issue bonds to meet day-to-day operation expenses. I blogged about this reckless, irresponsible practice here. Gov. Haley rightfully vetoed all these bills, stressing the recklessness of putting the taxpayer on the hook for debt to pay the light bill and such. Vetoes require a 2/3 vote to over ride.

S. 785 was taken up today. The vote wasn’t even close. Ayes (over ride) 17; Nays (sustain) 18; Present 9

AYES – 17: Anderson, Coleman, Elliott, Ford, Hutto, Jackson, Knotts, Land, Leventis, Lourie, Matthews, McGill, Nicholson, Pinckney, Reese, Scott, Williams

NAYS – 18: Bright, Bryant, Campbell, Campsen, Cleary, Courson, Davis, Fair, Gregory, Grooms, Martin (Shane), Massey, Peeler, Rose, Ryberg, Shoopman, Thomas, Verdin

PRESENT – 9 Alexander, Hayes, Malloy, Martin (Larry), McConnell, O’Dell, Rankin, Setzler, Sheheen

Here’s the Journal Statement of those voting present: Statement by Senators McCONNELL, LARRY MARTIN, O’DELL, HAYES and ALEXANDER We very reluctantly voted “present” on the question of whether to override the Governor’s veto on a Bill that would allow a school district to issue bonds to cover operating deficits from a prior fiscal year. The Bill also states that the General Assembly makes findings regarding the need to issue these bonds.

Since the General Assembly made no such findings and since we believe that issuing debt to pay for a deficit is a bad policy, we would have liked to have voted to sustain the veto.

However, there are two lawsuits currently pending on how to handle these very types of school Bills. Until the Supreme Court has ruled and the General Assembly has an opportunity to address the manner in which we deal with school district Bills, we voted “present” to allow the tradition and courtesy of the Senate to continue.

This process must change and it is our hope that these vetoes will be the impetus for that change.