Centerblue.org

There is a bill sitting on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk that if signed could fundamentally alter the way presidential elections are conducted in this country.

Currently the president is elected via the Electoral College, with electors drawn from each state. Each state’s electors pledge (though I believe are not required) to cast their votes in favor of the presidential candidate garnering a majority of votes in their respective states.

This system has led to problems, as the 2000 election demonstrated painfully–where the candidate who received a majority of the popular vote did not in fact win the presidency, because he managed to gain a majority of the electoral votes.

Now a new idea has emerged, based on the concept of interstate compacts akin to the ones that permit the Powerball lottery. In such compacts a state agrees with other states to respect the decisions of other states when it comes to doing something. In the case of the Powerball, each participating state agrees to honor a winning ticket as valid even though it was sold in another state.

With respect to the Electoral College, the idea (first advanced by inventor John R. Koza), the interstate compact would say that each participating state promises to cast its electoral votes for the candidate that wins the popular vote nationwide. If California enacts the legislation it would embolden many other states to do the same. The winner of the presidential contest would then truly be up to a majority of the people.

The justifications for the electoral college no longer apply. According to a paper written by a deputy director of the FEC Office of Election Administration, the primary reason for adopting the Electoral College as opposed to election by popular vote was the fear that the lack of readily available information about candidates from elsewhere would cause people to vote for “home grown” people from their own states, making a national vote unworkable and giving undue power to the most populated state. Instead, the founding fathers decided to put the presidential election in the hands of a small group of well-educated, well-informed electors that could cast their votes with full information and free of the influences of home states or political parties.

Clearly this rationale is greatly outdated. All information about all candidates are instantaneously available in a way not possible two centuries ago.

The author of the above-referenced paper makes some interesting arguments for keeping the Electoral College, such as the enhancement of power for minority groups (at least in theory, if a minority group is a majority in a state, it will have more power through the Electoral College than it would through popular vote alone). Another argument is that the College requires distributed popular support to win, rather than allowing a candidate to focus on a few populated areas at the expense of rural ones.

Ultimately I don’t think any of these arguments outweigh the value of a true popular vote. In practice I haven’t seen minority voting power enhanced in any state–and those states that have or someday may have majorities of non-white people (such as hispanics in southwest states) are not terribly influential in deciding presidential elections anyway. Additionally, as the 2004 presidential contest made clear it is possible to win by popular vote even if you do not garner a majority of votes in densely populated areas (Bush got several million more votes than Kerry even though Kerry carried most of the big cities on the coasts).

Eliminating the Electoral College would force candidates to campaign nationwide instead of just focusing on a few battleground states. There are many states that never see much of a candidate, because the state is guaranteed to go either “red” or “blue.” Today, my vote for a Democrat for President is about as valuable as spitting in the wind in reliably “red” Virginia; a popular vote count would make each vote matter as much as every other.

It will be interesting to see whether Schwarzenegger signs the bill, and how it will affect the 2008 election if he does.

In the face of an inexcusable lack of action on the part of the federal government, the onus of reducing global warming emissions has fallen on the individual states. California is leading the way, first by requiring auto emission reductions, and now by requiring industry to lower emissions 25% by 2020. An emissions trading market will assist in that endeavor.

The bill was was negotiated between the Democratic-controlled Assembly and Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, further cementing his credentials as one of the rare Republicans who act as responsible stewards of the environment. Not all Republicans were so sanguine: “This bill is the road to economic ruin for California,” screamed Chicken Little Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth.

Whatever. California has always led the way in instituting public policy reforms that are later adopted throughout the rest of the country. Its example is already being heeded in some measure by many other states. California’s insistence on auto emissions caps and refusing to enter long-term contracts with out-of-state utility companies who don’t reduce emissions will also have incidental benefits for other states, as companies are more likely to adopt a uniform stricter standard than to keep a patchwork of products by state.

Keep up the great work, California..the rest of the country will eventually heed you, despite Congress’s inane inaction.

Due to the federal government’s disgusting lack of action in the face of incontrovertible evidence about global warming, states and cities are taking matters into their own hands and moving aggressively to curb emissions. Examples include:

• California Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenneger recently met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to establish the trading of carbon dioxide pollution credits;
• 22 states and the District of Columbia require their utilities to derive some portion of their power (up to 33% in one case) from renewable energy sources;
• Up to 12 other states in the Northeast want to cut emissions 10% by 2019, set state-by-state limits on emissions, and allow industries to trade pollution credits;
• 11 states have set goals to reduce emissions to 80% of 1990 levels by the year 2050;
• California has passed legislation requiring automakers to reduce carbon dioxide exhaust in their vehicles by 30% by 2016, and ten other states will adopt the same rule if it challenges a court challenge from the automotive industry;
• Several cities are working to make their buildings carbon neutral by 2030;

These efforts will soon exceed anything the Bush administration has ever done about global warming. Notably, support for these efforts are coming from all parts of the political spectrum, making Bush look more and more foolish in his insistence that industry voluntarily adopt standards (which they never do) and that we should research the issue further (it’s been researched to death.)

Predictably, industry is opposing some of these efforts, although support is also coming from some surprising sources. Regarding the California lawsuit, auto makers are whining that they’re being forced to adopt different pollution standards for different states. What a dumb argument. The solution is simple: adopt the same stricter standard for all jurisdictions, not just California (which is of course what California and other states hope will happen). On the other hand, Duke Energy Corp. (power company) officials are pushing for federal regulation of emissions because they don’t want to deal with a patchwork of state and local rules. The federal government is talking out of both sides of its mouth, first praising local efforts and then threatening to intervene in the California lawsuit.

It’s pathetic that the federal government has its head stuck so far in the sand that the governor of California has to act like a head of state in negotiating an emissions treaty with another nation. It’s ludicrous that the technological leader of the modern world continues to be in a state of denial over the reality of drastic climate change already occurring as confirmed by the overwhelming majority of scientists. It’s also very good to know that more sensible politicians are not waiting on the federal government to begin action on this urgent problem.

The adage I learned in college has become truer than ever: Think Globally, Act Locally.