VERMONT
Vermont Laws vs. Texas Laws
Here’s something to ponder: Is the tiny State of Vermont equally self-governing as the
ginormous State of Texas? Answer carefully, as it is central to how our country operates,
including how we elect our president.

Do laws passed by the Vermont legislature apply equally to people in Vermont, as laws
passed by the Texas legislature apply to Texans? Suppose Texas doesn’t like a Vermont
law. Could they call a special election over the question? What if everyone in Texas
voted “No.” Would Vermont need to care?

Can a national voter base block a Vermont law?
But wait, what if all 49 States —millions of people not from Vermont—voted to block the
Vermont law? Would it have any force or application? Why not?  The Answer is: State
autonomy... or a term that some may find triggering...’sovereignty.’

Webster’s defines “sovereignty” as “autonomy” and “self-governance,” among others.
We operate in America via federalism, a formal power sharing among the States and
between 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.

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 named and listed 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.“

The Constitution is designed to protect Minorities from Majorities
In other words, the way America operates doesn’t lend itself to hasty judgments, even by,
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. The only ‘majority’ that counts is the majority of State
electoral votes. 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.

A Collusion Agreement in the works
So, where is this all leading? Since 2005 a group has been pitching something they call the
“National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” or NPVIC. Sixteen (16) State legislatures, plus DC of course, have signed on. It proposes to confiscate the votes of State presidential electors and hand them over
to the winner of the most votes nationally. The Compact would take effect when the number of NPVIC members’ electoral votes equals or exceeds 270, the number of votes needed to elect a president.

To date, seventeen (17) deep blue jurisdictions (including mine, Vermont and DC, of course) have joined the Compact.  Here’s where it gets complicated. The NPVIC legislation has been presented to all fifty (50) State legislatures at least once.  consistently been voted down in 29 equally autonomous States. In another sic (6) states the bill has failed to even get out of
committee. That’s thirty-five (35) anti-NPVIC States, three of whom have enshrined the Electoral
College in their State constitutions.

No legal challenges have yet been filed because the Compact has not taken effect. But what
if it did?

Could we really expect the courts to decide that sixteen or more (16+) autonomous States overrule thirty-fice (35) other autonomous States? 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). For the States 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 of Congress,
or 38 States, must approve the change. Where’s the evidence that this is forthcoming?

States elect the President. There is no uniform national popular vote!
But let’s get dreamy and assume the scheme was actually cleared to operate. What
then? If your State joins the Compact and uses Ranked Choice Voting, your vote
tabulations would crash and burn. There’s been talk of California allowing non-citizens
to vote. Under the Electoral College, a State could allow dogs and cats to vote without
changing the state’s electoral influence. But remove the Electoral College as a force of
law, and it’s a whole new ballgame. How might other States respond to the California
scheme?

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?
All the flack about inequity and the founders’ motives won’t matter in the midst of
extreme chaos.

Meanwhile, tiny little Vermont might want to reconsider whether its
citizens would be comfortable having their autonomy swallowed up into some deep and
murky national stew.

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

MONTANA
To the Editor - MissoulaCurrent.Com

​Having read James Nelson’s Jan. 25 opinion, “Majoritarian Democracy or Minority Tyranny”, as affirmed by the Levitsky-Ziblatt book, I would ask: What part of ‘sovereignty’ does Nelson not understand?

The STATES created the United STATES. The STATES elect the Federation's CEO
People are not sovereign; States are, in equal measure and regardless of any distinguishing characteristics. And no, there is nothing 'malapportioned' about the US Senate. “Federalism” is a formal power-sharing arrangement between the States and the central government. It defines the operation of our country. Some like to imagine that we have national elections and a peoples’ president. We have neither. In US 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." And every candidate for president knows this.

With all due respect, Levitsky and Ziblatt operate in the rarified air of the academy. While it may be a compelling read, their work is not subject to correction or rejection by any marketplace.

The Constitution is designed to protect the Minority, not to assure Majority Rule
One thing in this country that is “counter-majoritarian” is our key operating document, the Constitution, with those annoying checks and balances. In Federalist #39, Publius (James Madison) concludes, “... 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.“

There has never been ANY Constitutional requirement for any popular vote for President
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%)? (Source Wikipedia.)  Such details are both interesting and meaningless. The Electoral College delivered both men to the Oval Office. Do you remember any bellyaching over Bill Clinton’s election? Neither do I. 

If you want change, AMEND the Constitution.
Nelson desires wholesale change. Article V of the Constitution stipulates the process for amending the document. Spoiler alert: it’s really hard. In the meantime, I suggest we are at greater risk from legacy and social media fantasies and hoaxes. And, sadly, academic rhetorical inventions.
 
Roberta Schlechter
Volunteer NW Region Director
​with Michigan-based KEEP OUR 50 STATES
Portland, OR

MAINE
​
To the Editor - Central Maine.Com

Douglas Rooks’ Jan 11 opinion “Let all votes for president be counted equally”, discusses the Maine legislature considering the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) for the fourth time. NPVIC is an attempted work around of the Constitution, Article V, the process to be used to amend an operating document.

Rook’s analysis is a bit staggering. I respond as a former legislative staffer and longtime NPVIC skeptic. To debate the Electoral College vs NPVIC is an attempt to equate the known with the purely aspirational. Most such arguments originate, I think, with those who view the Electoral College as a dangling appendage rather than a central link in America’s operating infrastructure.

What the NPV Proposes is NO 'Simple Change'!
Rook is free to push the idea of Americans electing the president directly. But don’t insult the discussion by calling it a “simple change.”  For starters It runs afoul of residency requirements in the Maine state Constitution.

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. Do you remember any bellyaching over Bill Clinton? Neither do I.

The United STATES is a Federation - The STATES Created the Federal Government
Most extraordinary is Rook’s comment that “... we still allow States to stand in for the Republic’s actual voters.”   WHAT? It is the Constitution ... our central operating document ... that establishes an entire governing infrastructure around the sovereign States. We aren’t Canada; there, the central government established the Provinces. America’s story is the opposite. We operate in FEDERALISM, a formal power sharing between the federal government and the sovereign states. America has neither national elections nor a peoples’ president. POTUS stands for “President of the United STATES.”

The Founders' Design Avoids Collusion. The NPVIC IS Collusion.
By the way, “... electors never meet” because the founders wanted to prevent any collusion between or among the states. And far from national elections being beyond “fixing,” they would simply remove any transparency whatsoever.

​In contrast, 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: (New Mexico, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Indiana,  California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, New York, Ohio, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota) were unaffected by the disagreements. 

The NPV Gives Away the CONTROL of Who will cast MAINE's Votes!
In the 2020 election a Mainer’s vote was one in 819,000. Under NPVIC it would have been one in 155 million. Just exactly how does that make anything, or anyone, more “equal” in any way that matters?
 
Roberta Schlechter
Volunteer with Michigan-based KEEP OUR 50 STATES
Portland, OR

Having access to accurate data and information is extremely important when discussing or debating public policy.  I have found these sources to be great sources of clear and correct information for use in the defense of our Electoral College.​

 List of States in the U.S., Ranked by Population
   https://www.britannica.com/topic/largest-U-S-state-by-population

  U.S. States Nicknames
   https://thefactfile.org/us-states-nicknames/

  Presidential Election by State, 2020
   https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election_by_state,_2020

  Largest Metropolitan Areas
   https://www.thoughtco.com/largest-metropolitan-areas-1435135

  United States Electoral College Votes by State
   https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-Electoral-College-Votes-by-State-1787124

  Top Industries by State
   https://stacker.com/business-economy/top-industries-every-state

  Capitol Cities of the 50 States
   https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/4kg1pgNgj9kKyyX9TDapVkRXrJw=/4500x2531/smart/filter
s:no_upscale()/capitals-of-the-fifty-states-1435160v24-
0059b673b3dc4c92a139a52f583aa09b.jpg

  Faithless Elector Laws in the States
   https://www.cga.ct.gov/2021/rpt/pdf/2021-R-0023.pdf faithless elector laws

  Winners and Losers Under National Popular Vote Plan
   https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/img/email/nationalpopularvote.pdf

  Which States Allow Faithless Electors
   https://heavy.com/news/which-states-allow-faithless-electors-electoral-college/

  Where Candidates Biden, Trump, Harris and Pence have Travelled in Final Weeks of 2020 Campaign
   https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-viz-presidential-campaign-trail-tracker-20200917-
edspdit2incbfnopchjaelp3uu-htmlstory.html

  Swing States - Since 2000 there have been 11 different “swing” States. Migration changes things. 
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state

PENNSYLVANIA
Roberta's Opinion can also be found online at  Central link to electoral infrastructure
​
To the Editor, The Daily Item.com:

I read with interest Joe DeChristopher’s analysis of the Electoral College (Jan 9). He covers important history and cites two widely repeated questions. But I think he drops the ball at the end.

IN BRIEF: So inadequate were the Articles of Confederation (1777-1788), with their talk of Indians and pirates and postal roads, and a government that could set weights and measures but not levy taxes, nor set a national currency, nor call up an army, that the Founders feared the country would collapse without a course correction. That led to the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787.
 
The Federalist Papers - The Greatest of Explanations
The only way to bring the new document into being was for it to be ratified by the States. In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay draw countless parallels between the proposed operating system and those established within different States. These and other articles were widely disseminated throughout the country. Townspeople would gather and listen as a literate neighbor read out loud the latest message.
 
With all that was at stake, there was still resistance to such a power transfer from the States, including from Patrick Henry himself. One skeptic predicted that US senators elected for a six-year term would move their families to Washington and become a permanent fixture. Touché.
 
Survival of each of the States and of a New Nation were at Stake
What transpired at the Philadelphia convention was against a backdrop of national survival. The Founders did everything they could think of to limit the growth of slavery and still have the country hold together. It would take another half-century for an American President to conclude that continued slavery and survival of the Union were incompatible. Lincoln was labeled a “Black Republican” by secessionists. We know the price he paid.
 
Until the last few decades civics education taught process and details, but more important, it instilled in students a measure of common ground. Now we get gimmicks like National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Spoiler alert: it’s anything but constitutional. NPVIC proposes an end run around the Constitution Article V, the process for amending our operating documents. Moreover, each state that has joined NPVIC, including mine, has done so in violation of their own state constitution’s residency requirements for voting.

Our States are Fairly Represented in the Federation
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 of which are very liberal.
 
To debate the Electoral College vs NPVIC is an attempt to equate the known with the purely aspirational. It’s easy to reach for that Smiley Face when we think reality has let us down. Most such arguments stem, I think, from those who view the Electoral College as a dangling appendage rather than a central link in America’s electoral infrastruture.

DeChristopher knows better, which makes his conclusion disappointing. 


Roberta Schlechter
Portland, OR

MAINE​
To the Editor - Village Soup.com
 
Kudos to Midcoast citizens Heather Sprague of Cushing and Crystal Robinson of Hope, for going on the record opposing LD 1578, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which seeks a back-door end run around Article V of the Constitution, a short-cut to eliminate the Electoral College.

Maine has said “NO” to this four times since 2008.
 
To debate the Electoral College vs NPVIC is an attempt to equate the known with the purely aspirational. It’s easy to reach for that Smiley Face when we think reality has let us down. Most such arguments stem, I think, from those who view the Electoral College as a dangling appendage rather than a central link in America’s operational governance.

Two Additional Points in Defense of our Electoral College
Sprague, Cushing and others offer compelling arguments for rejecting NPVIC. Permit me to add two more.
 
First, 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%)? Was there any media bellyaching when the Electoral College delivered Clinton to the Oval Office? Of course not. Their guy won.
 
NPV Violates the Maine Constitution - Only Mainers' Votes May be Counted!
Second, NPVIC has managed to get this far without much attention to the issue of residency requirements stipulated in state constitutions. In fact, each state that has joined NPVIC, including mine, has done so in violation of their State Constitution’s local/state residency requirements for voting. In Maine, the state document stipulates:

•       ART 2, Sec. 1. “Qualifications of electors; written ballot; military servicemen; students. Every citizen of the United States of the age of 18 years and upwards… having his or her residence established in this state ... in the city, town or plantation, where his or her residence has been established…”
•      Maine.gov, Maine's State government website -- is very precise about what constitutes a “resident” of the state.

 
NPVIC would confiscate Maine’s electoral votes and transfer control to the winner of millions of votes from people who specifically do not meet Maine’s residency requirements. In what universe is that a good idea?
 
NPV Does NOT Make Anythng More Equitable
Calls for more “equitable” representation ignore the obvious: POTUS stands for “President of the United STATES.” Every state holds two popular elections for president. State electoral votes, especially in Maine, represent individual voters.

In the 2020 election a Mainer’s vote was one in 819,000. Under NPVIC it would have been one in 158 million. Just exactly how does that make anything, or anyone, more “equitable”?
 
Roberta Schlechter
Volunteer for Michigan-based KEEP OUR 50 STATES
Portland, OR

CONNECTICUT
Popular Vote Compact Violates State Law

​To the Editor, Connecticut Examiner:

Kudos to Robert Ham for his excellent defense of the Electoral College. The notion of abandoning it tends to rest with those who treat it like some dangling appendage, rather than a central thread in America’s operational infrastructure and the only tool that safeguards a state’s votes from irregularities in any other state.

Connecticut Already Joined the Dangerous NPC Scheme in 2018
Ham mentions commentary about “a bid to change the rules” on presidential elections. Here’s the irony: the Connecticut legislature and governor sent the state over that cliff in 2018 with adoption of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). And perhaps unknowingly they did so (as did my own state legislature) in violation of state law. (Actually, it's in violation of the State Constitution, which Legislatures never have no authority to do!)

Here’s the relevant language from the Connecticut State Constitution:

Connecticut State Constitution
​ARTICLE SIXTH.* OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS.

SEC. 1. “Every citizen of the United States who has attained the age of twenty-one years, who has resided in the town in which he offers himself to be admitted to the privileges of an elector at least six months next preceding the time he so offers himself … shall, on his taking such oath as may be prescribed by law, be an elector.”

The “Legal Beagle” website offers advice on how to establish residency: ” … In Connecticut and other states, residency requirements vary depending on agency or purpose. The best way to establish residency in a new state is to sever all formal ties with your old state… Get a Connecticut driver’s license and register to vote in Connecticut…”

Meanwhile, National Popular Vote proposes to confiscate the state’s seven (7) Electoral Votes and transfer them to the winner of votes cast by millions of people who specifically do not meet Connecticut state residency requirements.

At least two recent Supreme Court decisions (Chifalo v Washington, July 2020 and Moore v Harper, June 2023) offer directional clues of how the Court might rule in NPVIC.

No legal challenges have been filed yet because the Compact has not taken effect. If it does, it will be tied up in court for a long time.

Roberta Schlechter
Portland, Oregon

UNITED KINGDOM
To the Editor, Independent.Com.UK -
 
Regarding Gustaf* Kilander's January 2nd Op-Ed against the Electoral College, "The Electoral College is a 'bad' and 'undemocratic' system.  So, why does the US still use it?", as “undemocratic":

In Federalist #39, Publius (James Madison) concludes, “... 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.“
 
American students pick up at least the seeds of this in civics class. We understand the Electoral College to be one thread of a much larger operating infrastructure, one full of checks and balances. Such products of a Constitutional Republic of sovereign states, functioning as a representative democracy, cannot be “undemocratic.” It’s disappointing when attempts are made to isolate the Electoral College like some sort of dangling appendage.
 
Perhaps there are parts of the Swedish model that Kilander views through a similar lens.  
 
In choosing the CEO of the Federation, only STATE Electoral Votes have ever counted, never popular votes

I’m always puzzled when Electoral College skeptics begin with a litany of popular vote outcomes. (I will advise Kilander on this: In 1996 Bill Clinton got a smaller percentage of the popular vote-43%, than Donald Trump did in 2015-46%.) But the main point is that the only majority that matters in US presidential elections is the majority of electoral votes, representing each individual state.  America doesn’t have national elections and we don’t have a peoples’ president. POTUS stands for "President of the United STATES."
 
The Constitution, Article II Clause 3, stipulates “The Electors shall meet in their respective States.” All voting takes place on the same day. There is to be no outside pressure or colluding.
 
In like manner, from election night through state tabulating, the Electoral College draws a legal wall around every state, keeping those votes separate and distinct, and safe from any irregularities in any other state. Americans remember 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: (New Mexico, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Indiana,  California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, New York, Ohio, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota) were unaffected by the disagreements. 

Our States are NOT "over-represented"!
 
The Electoral College enables minorities to prevent an action, specifically, presidential election by a handful of population centers. Rather, successful candidates must secure support from multiple regions of the country.

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 of which are very liberal. Just since 2000 alone, there have been 11 different “swing” states .

The President of the United STATES has always been elected by the STATES

The 2016 inaugural was followed by mass demonstrations in Washington, DC and The Washington Post promoted “impeachment” on their front page. Later, large, coordinated, unruly crowds intruded into the Capitol Building, disrupting the Kavanaugh hearings, among others. There were no arrests. In 2020, 75 million Americans voted against Joe Biden. He got into office, many believe to the detriment of the country. 

Next year voters in each of our States are free to make different decisions. But the decision will emerge from the STATES via the Electoral College. It’s how the game is played.
 
Roberta Schlechter
Portland, Oregon, USA

* Gustaf Kilander is a US reporter based in Washington, DC. Before joining The Independent in late 2020, he worked at The Sun in London and Swedish public service radio and TV in Stockholm.