The Virginia State Capitol in Richmond.
Photo: Zach Gibson/Getty ImagesMichael Steele’s defense of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is misguided (“Virginia Isn’t Trashing the Electoral College,” Letters, Feb. 21). Under the compact, signatory states would have to allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who wins a plurality (not a majority) of the national popular vote.
Even so, the compact is a recipe for disaster. Compact supporters seem to assume that presidential races will continue to be dominated by two candidates, one of whom will get, if not a popular majority, at least a plurality above 40%—thus showing some national support. But the Electoral College, as it now works (with a winner-take-all system in all but two states), is one reason we’ve had two dominant parties. If the national popular vote controls the outcome, we can expect several candidates with a chance of winning to be on the November ballot. We could have a “winner” with only, say, 30% (and maybe even less) of the popular vote, and he or she could be someone unacceptable to the rest of the electorate. That’s crazy. It’s like being declared the “winner” of a presidential primary with 25% of the vote.
Another problem with the compact is that when the popular vote is close, a national recount would be necessary. With the Electoral College, recounts are typically required in at most a few states; the college generally provides a clear winner. With the compact, however, the ballots in every precinct in the country would require rechecking. Does Mr. Steele really want Bush v. Gore on steroids?
Em. Prof. Erik M. Jensen
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland
As your editorial “Will Virginia Drop the Electoral College?” (Feb. 18) correctly notes, the scheme is indeed an “end run” around the Electoral College, but even worse, it’s a stalking horse for its abolition. The massive financial interests behind this scheme readily admit that their ultimate goal is indeed its abolition. The NPVIC bill itself even promises to withdraw its scheme once its goal is achieved and the Electoral College is “terminated” (Section IV of the scheme).
State legislators considering such a scheme would do well to heed the words of John F. Kennedy, who in his now famous 1956 Senate speech defending the Electoral College warned that abrogating the Electoral College “would break down the federal system under which most states entered the union, which provides a system of checks and balances to insure that no group or area shall obtain too much power.”
Prof. Robert Hardaway
University of Denver
The compact makes no provision for the will of the state’s voters at all. I live in Virginia, and what the compact’s proponents seek to do is to outsource my vote to California and New York City—whose margins for Hillary Clinton provided the entirety of the difference in popular-vote totals in 2016. No, thanks. It’s an unconstitutional power grab, and it’s dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Michael G. Young
Fredericksburg, Va.
Mr. Steele seems to approve trashing our Constitution. Article I, Section 10 says: “No state shall . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”
I can’t think of any better reason not to destroy the Electoral College system than to have two white, male, East Coast, New York billionaires run against each other for president of the U.S.
Elizabeth B. Watson
Greenville, S.C.
Copyright ©2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
"popular" - Google News
February 28, 2020 at 05:25AM
https://ift.tt/2PxJbgB
The Popular Vote Compact Would Create an Electoral Mess - Wall Street Journal
"popular" - Google News
https://ift.tt/33ETcgo
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "The Popular Vote Compact Would Create an Electoral Mess - Wall Street Journal"
Posting Komentar