CONNECTICUT
​​
To the Editor, The Quinnipiac Chronicle

I’d like to respond to Thomas Potter’s October 1 views on The Electoral College, in The Case Against the Electoral College.

First, I challenge the idea that “everyone” knows about the Electoral College. Even if people have heard the name, how many know the extent to which it is embedded in America’s governing infrastructure? I’ll bet most don’t understand its composition or context.

But for the Electoral College, Those Urban Areas Would Dominate
Potter cites the population of “all 100 cities” as being 63 million people. But today’s campaigns target media markets. ThoughtCo lists the 30 most populous metropolitan areas in the US. They account for 145.1 million people, nearly half the country’s population and close to the entire 2020 vote count of 155.5 million. And guess what states/regions they don’t encompass? But for the Electoral College, those 30 urban areas absolutely would dominate presidential election campaigns.

Mark Alexander recently noted, “In the 2020 election, there were more votes cast in Los Angeles County than the vote totals in (each of) 38 (INDIVIDUAL) states.” Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by seven million votes nationally — five million in California and two million in New York.

Who the "Swing States" Are Changes
Potter cites swing states, that can “go either way” in an election. But this picture isn’t static. California used to be ‘red’ and Texas used to be ‘blue.’ In recent years people have migrated away from the woke states, favoring those with lower taxes and regulation and more personal freedom. Wikipedia reports that since 2000 there have been 11 different swing states.
 
I join Potter in disparaging the winner-take-all system. But that’s not about the Electoral College. This issue needs to be hammered out in every state legislature save Maine and Nebraska. These two states wisely allocate electoral votes to congressional districts.
 
Small States Are NOT Over Represented
Regarding the (tired) idea that small states are over-represented: California alone has 55 electoral votes, more than the total of the 12 smallest states scattered across the country, half of which are very liberal. New York’s 28 electoral votes dwarf the impact of North Dakota (3), Rhode Island  (4) and Alaska (3). Following mass migration to formerly ‘blue’ Florida, it now casts 30 electoral votes.
 
The Founders were more than just bright and clever. They were guided by two overarching forces: knowledge of history, specifically what becomes of mob rule; and a compelling need to preserve the Union. And I challenge the idea that there is much about human nature that they did not, or could not, envision.

And many times the candidate who lost the popular vote* won the Electoral College. The bi-partisan list includes Lincoln (1850), Hayes (1876), Garfield (1880), Cleveland (1884, 92), Wilson (1912, 16), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 and 1996), George W. Bush (2000), and Trump (2016).- (See Statista .com “Share of electoral college and popular votes from each winning candidate, in all United States presidential elections from 1789 to 2020”).  This has been the case about 40 percent of the time since 1824.

Did you know, in 1996 Bill Clinton got a smaller percentage of the popular vote (43%) than Donald Trump did in 2015 (46%)? Such details are both interesting and meaningless. The Electoral College delivered both men to the Oval Office. (See Wikipedia.)
  
Roberta Schlechter
Volunteer for Michigan-based KEEP OUR 50 STATES
Portland, OR

--
   *  (Editor's Clarification: This list includes Presidents elected that had less than a Majority of the total "popular votes" that were cast, although most did win a "Plurality" (the MOST votes) of a "popular vote tally".  A total of five Presidents were elected when they had fewer "popular votes" than one of their opponents - in effect, "losing" the popular vote.  They are J.Q. Adams^ (1824), Hayes^ (1876), Harrison (1888), Bush (2000) and Trump (2016). 

    ^ John Quincy Adams and Hayes were not elected by the Electoral College because neither received the required Majority of Electoral Votes to win.  They were elected by the States, each using their House of Representatives delegations to cast each State's sole Vote.  Popular vote tallies, however, have never been required by the Constitution nor Federal Law nor counted in electing the U.S. President.)

ILLINOIS

To the Editor, Windy City Times:

Re:  "Opinion: It's Time to Abolish the Electoral College"

I crossed paths with Prof. Patricca’s 9/15 article on abolishing the Electoral College because it’s been a specific focus of mine for nearly two decades. The professor has broad and stellar academic credentials in theater/arts, philosophy, and theology. I’ve done a deep dive into this civic issue.

Arguments about who won or lost the popular vote always head down a rabbit hole. It's just not the game that's being played or has ever been played. And every presidential candidate knows this.

Did you know that in 1996, Bill Clinton got a smaller percentage of the popular vote (43%) than Donald Trump in 2016 (46%)? Such details are both interesting and meaningless. The Electoral College delivered both men to the Oval Office. See Wikipedia.

The bi-partisan list of presidents who were elected with less than a majority of the popular vote, includes Lincoln (1860), Hayes (1876), Garfield (1880), Cleveland (1884 & 1892), Wilson (1912 & 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 & 1996), George W Bush (2000), and Trump (2016).  Source: Statista.com.  In fact, this has been the case bout 40 percent of the time since 1824. 

As to the origins of our Federalist model, the Founders’ first concern was literally preserving the Union. They feared that everything could fall apart. After a decade of trying to function under the dismal Articles of Confederation, our ‘brightest and best’ including  George Washington, agreed it was time to start over. Part of America’s unique story is that the states established the federal government (by ratifying the Constitution), not the other way around.

The United States has been called ‘a republic of 50 co-equal states, a republic of republics.’ The Constitution is organized to disburse, not consolidate, power. Equal representation in the Senate enacts the principle that every state is equally sovereign. The Electoral College enacts this principle. While the term does not appear in the Constitution, the process is spelled out in Article II Section I and later revised in Amendment XII. 

Regarding Patricca’s concerns about Faithless Electors, consider Chifalo v Washington (2020).  NPR reports, "... Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan ... said Electoral College delegates have no ground for reversing the statewide popular vote.”   

Since the presidency of George Washington, politics has encroached on the process. In 2020 Hollywood celebs bought air time urging Republican electors to renounce their commitment. If a similar message is directed at Harris electors, they must ignore it.

Regarding the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (which I’ve lobbied against since 2008): twice as many state legislatures have voted it down as have joined. The scheme calls for states to set aside their constituent votes in favor of the national vote winner. This violates state constitutional residency requirements and federal regulations. At least three Supreme Court rulings suggest the Compact would not pass legal muster.

Regarding the (tired) idea that small states are over-represented: California alone has 55 electoral votes, more than the total electoral votes of the 12 smallest states scattered across the country, half red and half blue. Since 2000 there have been 11 different “swing” States.  See Wikipedia.

Contrary to the idea that the Electoral College is “vulnerable to the tyranny of a well-organized and disciplined minority,” the Electoral College builds a legal wall around every state to protect it from irregularities elsewhere. Recall the 2020 election controversies in a handful of states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Thanks to the Electoral College, the 20 states that border the ones in question were unaffected by the disagreements. 
 
As the CEO of the American Federation, the President represents the states in matters like trade deals and treaties, defense and warfare, border integrity, and running the Executive Branch.  No other office crosses borders and speaks for the whole of the states. The presidential election process reflects this.
 
Roberta Schlechter
NW Volunteer with Michigan-based KEEP OUR 50 STATES
Portland, OR

NEW MEXICO

To the Editor, The Santa Fe New Mexican:

Re: Rebuttal Against 'Archaic Electoral College Keeps Trump Formidable'
 
Here are some thoughts on Milan Simonish’s 8/27 op-ed on the Electoral College.

It’s a common misconception that we have a national election and a people's president. We have neither.

In U.S. presidential elections the ONLY "majority" that counts is the electoral vote count from "the States." That's what POTUS stands for: "President of the United STATES."  As the CEO of the American Federation, the President represents the States in matters like trade deals and treaties, defense and warfare, border integrity, and running the Executive Branch.  No other office crosses borders and speaks for the whole. The presidential election process alone reflects this.

A Republic of Republics

The United States has been called “a republic of 50 co-equal states; a republic of republics.” Each state has equal representation in the US Senate because every state is equally sovereign. In our national governance, every sovereign state has an equal place at the table. That’s the point of equal representation in the US Senate. The Electoral College helps to enact this principle. It’s part of our Federation’s connecting tissue. The Constitution is organized to DISBURSE, not consolidate, power.  That’s why “Thermopolis, Wyoming, and Dover, Delaware” will always have a place at the table. But what if there were no Electoral College? In his article, Simonich mentions 22 different states. The Los Angeles metropolitan area alone has a higher population than all but four of them.
 
Presidents Are Never Elected by a National Popular Vote. On Purpose. By Design.
​
Arguments about who won or lost the popular vote always head down a rabbit hole. It's just not the game that's being played or has ever been played. And every presidential candidate knows this! Did you know, in 1996 Bill Clinton got a smaller percentage of the popular vote (43%) than Donald Trump did in 2015 (46%)? Such details are both interesting and meaningless. The Electoral College delivered both men to the Oval Office.  (See Wikipedia.)

The bi-partisan list of presidents who were elected with less than a majority of the popular vote, includes Lincoln (1850), Hayes (1876), Garfield (1880), Cleveland (1884, 92), Wilson (1912, 16), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 and 1996), George W. Bush (2000), and Trump (2016).  (See Statista.com)

This has been the case about 40 percent of the time since 1824. The LA Times (7/14/23) reported that “Since World War II, the Electoral College has had a Democratic tilt nine times and a Republican one 10 times ...”  California used to be ‘Red’ while Texas and Florida used to be ‘Blue.’ The Constitutional model and the Electoral College distinctly react to migration trends. 

The Electoral College Keeps Election Problems in One State Confined to that State

Finally, the Electoral College builds a ‘legal wall’ of essential safeguards around every state’s presidential vote tally.  Recall the 2020 election controversies in a handful of states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Thanks to the Electoral College, the 20 states that border the ones in question were unaffected by the disagreements. 

​Call it ‘zany,' but the Electoral College, and state sovereignty, are embedded in America’s election infrastructure.
 
Roberta Schlechter
NW Regional Volunteer for Michigan-based KEEP OUR 50 STATES
Portland, OR

PENNSYLVANIA

To the Editor,  Observer-Reporter

Re:  Replying to Middle Schoolers' Concerns
 
Editor,
​
Congratulations to Evan Klick for giving attention to a foundational part of America’s election infrastructure, the Electoral College, that Klick correctly says, “has been effective since it was instituted by the Founding Fathers.”

Every State is Equally Sovereign 
As to its effectiveness, let’s look at what the Constitution--Article II and Amendment 12—calls for the Electoral College to do.
 
First, the Electoral College helps to enact both the equal state representation in the US Senate (because every state is equally sovereign), and Congress’ representation of a diverse population. This is among the checks and balances that have sustained our Constitution since its inception. Every state ratified the Constitution when they joined the Union. 
 
Second, the Electoral College places the presidential election in all 50 STATES. We don’t have national elections or a peoples’ president. POTUS stands for “President of the United STATES.” As the CEO of the American federation, the President represents the states in matters like: trade deals and treaties, defense and warfare, border integrity, and running the Executive Branch. No other office crosses borders and speaks for the whole. The presidential election process reflects this. 
 
It's Part of the Checks and Balances
Remember, every state conducts two popular votes for president—the primary and general elections. Arguments about smaller states having outsized influence overlook the fact that larger states have greater influence in the House of Representatives, where all budget bills originate and which must pass every bill before it gets to the President’s desk. More checks and balances in the big picture. 
 
States are where we live. If asked ‘where we’re from,’ people are more likely to give the name of their home state. If your house is on fire, or the roads need repair, or you think your schools are failing, you don’t call Washington DC. Citizens of a state directly elect every lawmaker who serves their state exclusively. 
 
Don't Like 'Winner-Take-All'?  Change it in your State Legislature, not the Electoral College!
Third, I share Klick’s dislike of winner-take-all vote tallies. But that choice originates in state legislatures, not the Electoral College. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate electoral votes by congressional district. I wish more state legislatures would make this choice. 

Fourth, as for those swing states, there have been 11 different swing states since 2000. And the effects of significant migration showed in the last national census. Some large states lost congressional districts and smaller states gained them. 
 
Fifth, arguments about who won or lost the popular vote always head down a rabbit hole. It's just not the game that's being played, or has ever been played. And every presidential candidate knows this. Did you know, in 1996 Bill Clinton got a smaller percentage of the popular vote (43%) than Donald Trump did in 2015 (46%)?  The Electoral College delivered both men to the Oval Office. (Source: Wikipedia)

The bi-partisan list of presidents who were elected with less than a majority of the popular vote includes, but is not limites to:  Lincoln (1860), Hayes (1876), Garfield (1880), Cleveland (1884, 1892), Wilson (1912, 1916) Truman (1948), kennedy (1960), Bixon (1068), Clinton (992, 1996), George W Bush (2000), and Trump (2016).  "Share of Electoral College and Popular Votes from each winning candidate, in all United States oresidential elections, 1789 - 2020". (Source Statista,com) 

Protecting States from Voting Problems in Other States
Finally, the Electoral College safeguards the presidential vote count in every state against vote irregularities in any other state. Recall the 2020 election controversies in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Thanks to the Electoral College, the 20 states that border the ones in question were unaffected by the disagreements. 
 
I know this is a lot of information. I hope it is helpful to Evan and his Trinity Middle School classmates, and might prompt them to reconsider the Electoral College’s role as an essential constitutional tool. 
 

Roberta Schlechter
NW Region Director, 
Volunteer for Michigan-based KEEP OUR 50 STATES
Portland, OR

To the Editor, Mother Jones: 

​Re:  Ari Berman's Article of April 4, 2024

I will not question Ari Berman’s plethora of partisan judgments (April 4) about this or that presidential candidate. But he treats our constitutional history like a discourse on how sausage is made. This distorts our picture of the American model of election and governance. 
 
At the top of Berman’s comments should come the “remarkable” Constitution, “...creating a strong central government and robust system of checks and balances that became a model for democracies across the globe. It prevented the country from sliding into anarchy, set up durable governing bodies, and restored elites’ faith in democracy...” I contend this track record hinges on the fact that “the Constitution is so difficult to revise.” 

'POTUS' is the CEO of the Federation of American STATES 
Here’s the big picture: POTUS stands for “President of the United STATES.” The only relevant “majority” in a presidential election is about electoral votes cast by the states. Acting as CEO, the President represents the states in matters that are primarily external to the states: trade deals and treaties, defense and warfare, border integrity, and running the Executive Branch.  No other office crosses borders and speaks for the whole. That’s why the presidential election process is unique.
 
The LA Times (7/14/23) reports that since World War II, the Electoral College has had a Democratic tilt nine times and a Republican one 10 times...”
 
The bi-partisan list of presidents who were elected with less than a majority of the popular vote, includes but is not limited to: Lincoln (1850), Hayes (1876), Garfield (1880), Cleveland (1884, 92), Wilson (1912, 16), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 and 1996), George W. Bush (2000), and Trump (2016).   “Share of electoral college and popular votes from each winning candidate, in all United States presidential elections from 1789 to 2020”  (Source, Statista.com)    In fact, this has been the case about 40 percent of the time since 1824.
 
And the cherry on the cake: In 1996 Bill Clinton got a smaller percentage of the popular vote (43%) than Donald Trump did in 2016 (46%). It was that dastardly Electoral College that handed Clinton the presidency. Twice.  (Source: Wikipedia.com)

The States are Sovereign Entitites and Comprise the US Federation 
Berman overlooks the essential matter of equity in the US Senate, as reflected in the Electoral College. Equity represents SOVEREIGNTY, the overarching principle of our Union of federated states, ensuring that all states have an equal voice in governance. Every state, whether Delaware or Texas, and all in between, is equally sovereign. That is, a law passed in Delaware applies to Delaware citizens to the same degree that a law passed in Texas applies to Texans. And if Delaware passes a law that Texans don’t like, Delaware doesn’t need to care. And if all 49 states disagree with Delaware’s law, Delaware’s sovereignty will have the last word. I guess that falls under Berman’s “determined minority.” Tell that to Delaware.
 
Let’s get real. The States are where people live. The States make up the Union. Contrary to “majority opinion,” safeguarding the Union was far and above the Founders' most pressing challenge. Sausage making.

The U.S. is NOT a Democracy and was Never Intended to be 
Sorry, folks, America is NOT a democracy ... the word does not appear in the Constitution. What we do find, in Article 4, Section 4, is this: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...” Here’s what that means, according to two public resources:
 
1. Key Takeaways: Republic vs. Democracy   (Source: Thoughtco.com) 
·      Republics and democracies both provide a political system in which citizens are represented by elected officials who were sworn to protect their interests.

·      In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.

·      In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

·      The United States, a republic, is best described as a "representative democracy".
 “Founding Father James Madison may have best described the difference between a democracy and a republic: “It [the difference] is that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person: in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.”

Finally, “The constitutionally-granted power of the judicial branch to overturn laws made by the legislative branch illustrates the unique ability of a republic’s rule of law to protect the minority from a pure democracy’s rule of the masses.”
​
2. Next, from Democracy vs Republic  (Source: Diffen.com) 
“The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters.

In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.”

Small States are NOT Over-Represented
As Berman says, amending the Constitution is really hard. So why not update the questions we ask. For example: Is gerrymandering the exclusive work of conservatives? Tell that to New York. How many ethnic minorities of voting age own a mobile device? Then they possess the ID needed to vote.
About that (tired) idea that small states are over-represented: California’s 55 electoral votes are greater than the total electoral votes of the 12 smallest states scattered across the country, half of which are very liberal.

Finally, regarding the Supreme Court ruling on whether former President Trump could be removed from state ballots, it was none other than Sonia Sotomayor who wrote, “Federalism principles embedded in [the] constitutional structure decide this case. States cannot use their control over the ballot to undermine the National Government. That danger is even greater in the context of a Presidential election. State restrictions in that context implicate a uniquely important national interest extending beyond a state’s own borders.” 

 
Roberta Schlechter, former Legislative Saffer
Volunteer for Michigan-based KEEP OUR 50 STATES
Portland, OR 

MAINE
Editor
Portland Press-Herald
Portland, ME

Responding to News Article 'House Gives Initial Apprioval to National Popular Vote Bill'
​
Editor,
​
National Popular Vote backers whine about winner-take-all elections, then push to
dismantle Maine’s highly respected alternative process. Good for Rep. Boyer to
emphasize that Maine’s tiny population enjoys outsized influence (0.4% to 0.75%) of the
Electoral College vote.

Recent Supreme Court rulings emphasize state sovereignty regarding elections. Sadly,
Maine House democrats (minus Hasenfus, Mastraccio and Montell) pushed in the
opposite direction and for congressional district #1’s influence to disappear.

Reporter Randy Billings explains that under national popular vote, Mainers would end
up supporting the national winner “even if that doesn’t reflect the state’s results.” But
the idea that this doesn’t “eliminate the electoral college process” is contradicted by bill
language in at least some states, that the NPVIC would terminate “if the Electoral
College is ever eliminated.”

Sponsor Bell bemoans “sitting up late at night” as election results come in. Mainers
should challenge him to explain peoples’ reactions when announced results are always
tied up in court, not by a candidate, but by some or all of the 35 states that have
consistently voted “NO” to giving up their sovereignty.

Discard the idea that just one or two former Presidents “lost the popular vote.” In 1996
Bill Clinton got a smaller percentage of the popular vote (43%) than Donald Trump did in
2015 (46%). The Electoral College delivered both men to the Oval Office because they
were elected by the states. Do you remember any bellyaching over Bill Clinton? Neither
do I.

​See List of U.S. Presidential Elections by Popular Vote, Wikipedia

​
Roberta Schlechter
NW Regional volunteer for Michigan-based KEEP OUR 50 STATES
Portland, OR

SMOKY MOUNTAINS, NORTH CAROLINA & TENNESSEE

To the Editor, Smoky Mountain News:

Glen Duer’s March 6 letter calls the US election system “archaic” and Constitutional stipulations “an anachronism.” Those labels could apply to many quirks of a country that covers multiple time zones, whose dollar reigns over the world market, and a country for all its imperfections that is still the dream destination of millions around the world.

List of Countries Electing Their CEO by a National Popular Vote
Duer maintains that no other developed country uses our election system. On the other hand, according to Wikipedia, here is the list of countries who elect their Chief Executive directly by national vote: 

• Angola
• Bosnia & Herzegovina
• Cameroon, Congo
• Equatorial Guinea
• The Gambia
• Honduras
• Iceland
• Kiribati
• Malawi
• Mexico
• Nicaragua
• Palestine
• Panama
• Paraguay
• Philippines
• Rwanda
• Singapore
• South Korea
• Taiwan
• Tanzania, and
• Venezuela.   

Of this list of 21, 11 have populations under 10 million. The remaining are either monolithic, unstable, and/or dictatorships. Surely this isn’t where America belongs. Source: Wikipedia - First Past the Post

We hear lots of talk about “two of the last four presidents got less (popular) votes than their opponents.”  But did you know, in 1996 Bill Clinton got a smaller percentage of the popular vote (43%) than Donald Trump did in 2015 (46%)?  Such details are both interesting and meaningless.  America doesn’t have national elections or a peoples’ president.  POTUS stands for “President of the United STATES.”  The Electoral College, on behalf of the citizens of the STATES delivered both Clinton and Trump to the Oval Office.   Source: Wikipedia - US Presidential "Popular Vote" Margins
​  
The Founders Created a Union of States, not a Democracy. Ingentionally.
If the Pew Research organization were to take a poll of STATES—the actual players in the selection of our President, the majority would come down solidly on the side of the Electoral College. It plays a central role in America’s governing infrastructure. Duer mentions the possible need to amend the Constitution. Here’s the process: Congress can propose an amendment with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate OR by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Then, any proposed amendments must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths of the states.
 
Our Founders’ Number One goal was to establish a Union of states that would chose to hang together, rather than split apart. That along with their knowledge of the history of European “democracies” led to layers of prevention against the tyranny of the majority.
 
Duer has concerns over whether state presidential electors will fulfill their mandated responsibility. But in the Supreme Court Ruling (2020) Chifalo v Washington, NPR reported, "... Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan ... said Electoral College delegates have no ground for reversing the statewide popular vote.” That should give Duer some comfort. But it also slams the National Popular Vote, which would confiscate state electors from the voters they represent, and hand them over to the winner of a mythical national election.
 
Duer references Hillary Clinton’s popular vote margin over Trump in 2016. But NBC News reports that in the last 100 days of the campaign:
   1) Trump paid 50% more visits to 6 key battleground states. Hillary made zero trips to Wisconsin.
   2) Trump did all his own campaigning while Hillary used surrogates.
   3) Trump outcampaigned Hillary by 30% in Florida, 23% in Pennsylvania and over 50% in Michigan.
 
Around such consequential matters, may we all avoid those “influencers” who would take us down a simplistic path towards a less unique and perfect nation.
​
 
Roberta Schlechter
Pacific NW Volunteer for Michigan based KEEP OUR 50 STATES.
Portland, OR

MICHIGAN

Editor -

National Popular Vote Threatens Michigan's Autonomy

Here’s something to ponder: Is #10 (in size) Michigan equally self-governing as #2 Texas? Answer carefully, as it is central to how our country operates, including how we elect our president.
 
Do laws passed by the Michigan legislature apply equally to Michiganders as laws passed by the Texas legislature apply to Texans? Suppose Texas doesn’t like a Michigan law. Could they call a special election over the question? What if everyone in Texas voted “No.” Would Michigan need to care?
 
State Sovereignty
But wait, what if all 49 states—millions of people not from Michigan—voted to override the Michigan law? Would it have any force or application? Why not? Answer: state autonomy... or a term that some may find triggering ... ’sovereignty.’
 
Webster’s defines “sovereignty” as “self-governance,” among others.  We operate in America via federalism, a formal power sharing among and between the sovereign states and the central government, created when the states ratified the Constitution and reinforced by its checks and balances. This infrastructure has multiple integrated layers of operation. Among them is the Electoral College.
 
In Federalist #39, Publius (James Madison) writes, “... The proposed Constitution … is, in strictness, neither a national, nor federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.“
 
Electoral College Preserves Transparency 
In other words, the way America operates doesn’t lend itself to hasty judgments, even, or especially, by the ‘majority.’ And when we refer to a “majority” it’s according to context. A presidential election, for example, isn’t like a vote for school superintendent. What the Electoral College does is place the election of the CEO of the American Federation into ALL 50 states. That’s where people live. The only ‘majority’ that counts is the majority of state electoral votes as recorded by the Electoral College. The Electoral College also safeguards vote tabulations in each state from controversies in any other state. Remove the Electoral College and transparency becomes a thing of the past.
 
So, where is this all leading? Since 2005 a group has been pitching something they call “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” or NPVIC. It proposes to confiscate the votes of state presidential electors and hand them over to the winner of the most popular votes nationally. The Compact, which will be among only a minority of the States, would take effect when the number of members’ electoral votes in the Compact equals or exceeds 270, the number of votes needed to elect a president. It’s an attempted workaround to the ominous task of amending the Constitution.
 
Thirty-Four States Have Rejected the NPV Since 2005
To date 16 deep blue states, including mine, have joined the Compact. Here’s where it gets complicated. The legislation has consistently been voted down in 28 equally autonomous states of all sizes. In another 6 states the bill has failed to even get out of committee. That’s 34 anti-NPVIC states, three of whom have enshrined the Electoral College in their state constitutions.
 
No legal challenges have been filed because the Compact has not taken effect. But what if it did?
 
Could One Group of States Overrule a Different Group of States?
Could we really expect the courts to decide that one group of sovereign states could overrule a different group? Look to the Constitution for clues. Article V stipulates the process for amending the document, which also directs the behavior of the Electoral College in Article II (later clarified in Amendment 12). To even discuss amending the Constitution requires approval by two-thirds of Congress, or two-thirds of the states, calling for such action. If an amendment change is proposed, three-fourths, or 38, of the States, must approve the change. Where’s the evidence that this is forthcoming?
 
Remove the Electoral College as a force of law, and Michigan would be swallowed up along with Wyoming and Delaware. How might states respond? Think outside the box. How many and varied combinations of lawsuits can one imagine? And how many years might it take to adjudicate this chaos in the courts?
 
Charges, Chaos, and Confusion
Regular contributor Jim Fossell in Maine (Portland, ME Press Herald-January 21) reminds us that there were declarations of election illegitimacy (i.e., “Russian interference”) in the past two elections, not to mention the 2000 election. Disagreements sound more toxic when media voices proclaim the entire system suspect. And imagine a future in which states felt entitled to pluck one candidate or another from the ballot, based on the latest rhetorical avenue toward the 14th Amendment. 
 
All the flack about inequity and the founders’ motives won’t matter in the midst of extreme chaos.

Meanwhile, the Michigan legislature needs to carefully consider whether its citizens would be comfortable having their autonomy swallowed up into some deep and murky national stew.
 
Roberta Schlechter
Northwest Regional Director, Volunteer
Michigan-based KEEP OUR 50 STATES
Portland, OR

VIRGINIA
To:  Chairperson Price, Vice Chair Convirs-Fowler and Members of the House Privileges and Elections Committee  

Re: HB 375 National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Scheme

Imagine what (US Supreme Court) Justice Kagan would tell you about this:
​
Given the details of your state constitution regarding residency requirements for eligibility to vote... no amount of magic will close the gap between legislative intent and the stipulations of a state constitution than in Virginia.
 
Article !!. Franchise and Officers
Section 1. Qualifications of voters

“In elections by the people, the qualifications of voters shall be as follows: Each voter shall be a citizen of the United States, shall be eighteen years of age, shall fulfill the residence requirements set forth in this section, and shall be registered to vote pursuant to this article... 

“The residence requirements shall be that each voter shall be a resident of the Commonwealth and of the precinct where he votes. Residence, for all purposes of qualification to vote, requires both domicile and a place of abode...

Presidential electors occupy a state office, in this case held by residents of Virginia. NPVIC proposes to confiscate the electoral votes from Virginia—votes cast to represent your eligible voters alone--and hand them off to the winner of votes cast by hundreds of millions of people, none of whom meet Virginia’s state eligibility requirements for voting.

And if you’re wondering what Justice Kagan would say ... try this:
“Maybe put most boldly, I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States?" 

Ref. Liberal Justice Stumps Colorado Lawyer Arguing to Boot Trump Off Ballot with One Key Question 
... a “single state” or any minority of states, versus a 35-state refusal.

Stop trying to put lipstick on a pig. Drop this scheme that is destined for failure.

Roberta Schlechter
NW Region Director, Volunteer
KEEP OUR 50 STATES
Portland, OR