Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/23/2012 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR33 | |
| HR10 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HR 10-OPPOSE NAT'L POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT
9:04:04 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
RESOLUTION NO. 10, Supporting the Electoral College and opposing
the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by
National Popular Vote interstate compact.
9:04:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, as sponsor, introduced HR 10 and noted
that there were a number of people on line waiting to testify.
He opined that the current electoral voting system is fair if it
is the states that are voting, but not fair if it is the people
that are voting. He said this is an issue of democracy, and he
talked about the balance between the sovereignty of the states
and the sovereignty of the federal government. He opined that
with its small population, Alaska would lose power if it were to
change to a National Popular Vote (NPV).
9:08:10 AM
ERNEST PRAX, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HR 10 on behalf of Representative Keller,
sponsor. He stated that the intent of HR 10 is to voice the
concern of the Alaska House of Representatives that an NPV would
conflict with the U.S. Constitution and founding Federalist and
Republican principles and would unlikely increase Alaska's
influence in deciding future presidential elections. He relayed
that there are multiple, practical, and constitutional conflicts
related to the proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
(NPVIC), and said HR 10 would reaffirm that the Electoral
College "remains the most prudent and proper means of electing
the President of the United States." He clarified that the
NPVIC proposes to replace the Electoral College system of voting
based on the combined will of the states with a system using
popular vote.
MR. PRAX stated that the most common argument against the
current Electoral College system of voting is that it is not
based on the idea of every vote being equal and can result in a
President being elected, despite losing the popular vote, the
most recent example being the 2000 General Election.
MR. PRAX listed the shortcomings inherent in the proposed
compact: First, he said, Alaska could lose up to 55 percent of
its electoral influence. Second, he indicated, the political
motives of the states that have thus far ratified the compact -
on the East and West Coasts - differ from Alaska's. Third, he
said, the compact is unlikely to change the "supposed problem of
battleground stakes," and there likely will not be "attention by
Presidential candidates focused on safe states like Alaska."
Fourth, he relayed, the compact is "likely to shift focus away
from the current system, where candidates are incentivized to
establish broad geographic coalitions of support" and "shift the
attention towards densely populated areas" - particularly in
areas where the candidate may have a "strong showing."
9:12:48 AM
MR. PRAX admitted that the Electoral College is not a perfect
system. He quoted Alexander Hamilton as saying, "The Electoral
College, if not perfect, is at least excellent." He said the
proposed compact is "an idea that works well in a bubble";
however, it has many shortcomings such that it will likely not
"work as advertised." He stated that the compact incorrectly
assumes that American people speak with a unified political
voice, and it depends on too many variables to function
properly. Mr. Prax concluded, "Just because electing the
President of the United States by popular vote may ... look,
feel, or sound good, it does not necessarily therefore mean that
it is good."
9:14:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S.
Constitution gives states the authority to award their electoral
votes as determined by the legislatures of those states. He
asked Mr. Prax if he is disputing that the Alaska State
Legislature has the right and responsibility to determine the
basis of the allocation of its Electoral College votes.
MR. PRAX urged Representative Seaton to look beyond "that single
section of the Constitution" to the intent of the Founding
Fathers and question whether "that proposed action" complies
with "the spirit of the rest of the Constitution." He indicated
that there is a PowerPoint presentation, which contains a more
comprehensive answer to that question.
9:17:36 AM
TARA ROSS, Author, Enlightened Democracy: The Case For The
Electoral College, testified on behalf of herself in support of
HR 10. She said it is important to remember that although
Alaska is large in size, it has three electoral votes and a
population of 722,000, while the population of the U.S. is 311
million. She said it is difficult for Presidential candidates
to travel to Alaska, given its distance from the Lower 48
states. She said Alaska needs the protection offered by the
Electoral College. She said during the Constitutional
Convention, the Founding Fathers focused not only on giving the
people of the nation a means by which to govern themselves, but
also on protecting minority interests and the interests of small
states from "the tyranny of unreasonable majorities." She said
a pure democracy, in which 51 percent of the people can rule the
other 49 percent, would not accomplish this objective. Ms. Ross
said the Founding Fathers combined the best elements of
democracy, republicanism, and federalism. Because of this, the
U.S. has a system that incorporates protections, such as the one
state/one vote of the Senate, Presidential veto, and the
Electoral College.
MS. ROSS stated that the NPV organization has been telling
Alaskans that a direct national election would: bring more
attention to Alaska, because every vote would be equal; give
Alaska the same legal weight as California; and encourage
Presidential candidates to "flock to the state in droves." She
said this information is wrong. She admitted perhaps Alaska
currently does not receive the same attention as other states,
but posited that it does not follow that eliminating the
Electoral College will improve the situation. She said the U.S.
Census shows the population of California is 37.7 million, and
California has 55 electoral votes. She said California has more
than 52 times the population of Alaska, but only 18 times the
number of electoral votes. She highlighted the populations of
the two states to emphasize the effect of an NPV.
9:22:10 AM
MS. ROSS mentioned other legal and Constitutional problems,
which she said she does not have time to address presently, but
she offered her understanding that the committee should have a
white paper she submitted.
9:23:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that the Presidential race is
different from other races because of the Unit Rule, which means
that the President is not elected by the people, but by states.
MS. ROSS said that is right, but said she thinks that is a good
thing. She reiterated that the Electoral College offers
democracy within federalism. She proffered that the Electoral
College system ensures that Presidential candidates have to
"broaden their base of appeal," rather than simply focusing
their campaigns on heavily populated areas; they must focus on
achieving "simultaneous victory in multiple parts of the
country." She opined that [the Electoral College] is a great
system that has worked out well.
9:25:31 AM
TRENT ENGLAND, Vice President of Policy, Freedom Foundation,
related that he directed a state project, which he then
convinced the Freedom Foundation to adopt. He stated his belief
that the Electoral College is an important institution in this
country. He said this debate is about how the country elects
the person who is the leader of the free world. He said the
U.S. has a republic, which is a system of government that uses
representation and has legal processes and structures built into
it to provide the stability and moderation that direct
democratic systems have never been able to achieve. There are
provisions in the U.S. Constitution that explicitly do not allow
the majority to have its way.
9:28:48 AM
MR. ENGLAND talked about federalism being a unique quality of
the U.S., and proffered that the U.S. Senate is the most obvious
example of how federalism is built into the U.S. Constitution.
He said if four states changed who they sent as their Senators,
it would change the current make-up of the U.S. Senate. He
opined that the U.S. Senate is less "fair," from a purely
democratic view, than is "the Electoral College that we're
talking about today." Nevertheless, he said he thinks Alaskans,
more than any other state, understand the importance of the U.S.
Senate, and he said he hopes [Alaskans] support HR 10.
MR. ENGLAND said individual disputes are contained within
states, and he mentioned there was a significant dispute in some
states in 1876. [Due to poor audio quality, much of this
portion is indiscernible.] He offered further details regarding
the 1867 election.
9:33:21 AM
MR. ENGLAND concluded that the Electoral College, while not
always making everyone happy, is "a brilliant system that works
differently but almost certainly better than the American
founders thought it would." He said much of the reason for that
is that it respects the uses of states as states and provides
moderation and stability in the federal republic.
9:34:21 AM
JOHN SAMPLES, Ph.D., Director, Center for Representative
Government, Cato Institute, ventured that state legislators
would like to know whether their state would benefit under an
NPV, and related that he answered that question in a 2008 policy
analysis. He said the outcome of his analysis shows that in
general, small states "lose power mathematically" under a system
of direct voting, which is what the NPV is. He said that large
states tend to do well under an NPV system.
DR. SAMPLES said the NPV is based on the idea that there will be
more attention to Alaska; however, a leading study in The
America Economic Review, based on data from 1948-2000, states
that Alaska will lose about half its votes and get less
attention from Presidential candidates if it moves from the
Electoral College Vote to the NPV.
9:37:12 AM
LAURA BROD said she is a former legislator from Minnesota who is
testifying on behalf of the NPV organization based in
California. She opined that the legislature has been given a
"false choice." She explained that it is not an either/or
choice; the legislature does not have to choose whether to keep
the Electoral College or go to an NPV. She explained that the
NPV currently before the U.S. Senate does not touch the
Electoral College, she said. She said she agrees that the
Electoral College is an important part of the foundation of the
U.S, and she emphasized, "The National Popular Vote bill doesn't
address that or touch it and run around it, repeal it, replace
it, or any other thing. It doesn't mess with it one bit. If it
did, ... I would not be here before ... the committee." She
opined that how the country elects its President is big issue,
which is why the NPV organization's complaint is not with the
Electoral College, but with winner-take-all rules that are in 48
out of the 50 states and ignoring Alaska.
MS. BROD said previous testifiers have used simple math to warn
that under the NPV Alaska would lose about half its influence.
She said her response is: "zero times zero still equals zero."
She said Presidential candidates focus all their attention on
the battleground states; 35 states are ignored. She said that
builds coalitions in certain states at the expense of others.
She said it is not just about the money or attention, but about
the issues, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR),
base closures, land management, and oil and gas.
MS. BROD said an NPV would expand the coalitions in the country
and expand the influence of Alaskans by "making candidates care
about what ... the people you represent think."
9:40:37 AM
MS. BROD said Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution,
gave state legislatures the authority to "award your electors
however you see fit in the best interest of the people that you
represent." She relayed that she has spoken with many Alaskans,
and she offered her understanding that they truly want their
vote to matter, want candidates to talk about the issues they
care about, and do not want the Presidential election decided by
4:00 p.m. on the day of the election. She said this issue has
been studied in committees throughout the country and she urged
further time be devoted to its discussion. In response to the
chair, she said she would be happy to return for future
discussions on the issue.
9:41:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed appreciation for Ms. Brod's
testimony.
MS. BROD, in response to Representative Keller, explained that
there are two entities promoting the NPV: one is incorporated
in Florida and is called, "Support Popular Vote"; the other,
which she represents, is incorporated in California.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he takes exception to Ms. Brod's
statement that the NPV would not affect the Electoral College.
He said, "The effect of the National Popular Vote is to go from
a popular vote that is determined state by state across the
whole U.S. to a popular vote that is national. That changes the
fundamental intent of the founders for the Electoral College."
[HR 10 was held over.]