Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/24/2001 08:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 23 - MAINTAIN ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM Number 2781 CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23, Advocating the retention of the electoral college system in its present form. Number 2813 CHAIR COGHILL noted that he brought HJR 23 forward in its present form as a House State Affairs Standing Committee bill. He suggested that there is one area in HJR 23 that the committee might consider changing: on page 1, line 12, delete "while guaranteeing that the voices of this nation's minorities are heard" and insert "while protecting the voice of this nation's minority vote". He opined that the former language raises a lot of questions. He mentioned that he is bringing forth HJR 23 at the request of leadership. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she is in favor of maintaining the electoral college, but noted that she is not sure that the language on lines 11-12 is a good statement to have at all. She opined that minorities have a louder voice in this system than in any other system. She added, however, that to her, the electoral college is almost a state's rights issue. "I understand the argument that we ought to have the will of the majority of the people, [but] quite frankly I'm not convinced that when we have completed an election, that we always have the will of the majority of the people, because many of those people don't even vote." She also noted that since many people outside of Alaska don't have a clear understanding of some of the issues specific to Alaska, the only way to ensure that Alaska has a voice is through the electoral college. Therefore, when speaking about minorities, she surmised that the discussion really pertains to the "minority states" that have smaller populations. She said she is not convinced that the language saying, "ensures that the will of the majority is carried out while guaranteeing that the voices of this nation's minority" is a very good statement, period. She suggested that this language should be removed altogether. CHAIR COGHILL noted that he "stumbled over that very thought." REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS, as a college teacher, noted that the hardest part of teaching U.S. history is dealing with the electoral college. He opined that one of the strongest arguments for the electoral college system is that at some point, it does reach a conclusion, which is a real advantage - at some point the election is over and someone becomes president. TAPE 01-47, SIDE B Number 2956 REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that he agrees with Representative James that it would be better to leave out [lines 11-12] on page 1, and that he would like to see the point made by Representative Stevens added to HJR 23. Number 2930 CHAIR COGHILL made motion to adopt [Amendment 1], striking lines 11-12 on page 1. There being no objection, [Amendment 1] was adopted. Number 2903 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, adding to page 2 [line 4], wording to the effect: "WHEREAS the electoral college brings a conclusion to the electoral process." [Although the chair did not specifically announce that Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted, the drafter treated Conceptual Amendment 2 as having been adopted and thus incorporated it into the House State Affairs Standing Committee Substitute.] REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that although he believes in the electoral system and wants to see it preserved, he has some problems with the electors: the way it is set up now, an elector, once he/she is selected, can vote for whomever he/she pleases. He posited that a number of times in the past, electors have been pledged to one candidate but voted for another. He suggested that there should be steps taken to ensure that once chosen, an elector votes as pledged. CHAIR COGHILL said that such could be done statutorily since each state is responsible for determining how its electors are handled. He added that although such a change is outside the scope of HJR 23, it is within the scope of the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said that he has never liked the electoral college system; he opined that it disenfranchises voters by taking away the whole concept of "one man/one vote." When people are told to go out and vote, then told that their vote counts but it doesn't really count, it is problematic. Half the time, no one knows who the people are who are going to vote to make the final decision. He relayed that when he's spoken to people this year about the presidential election, a response he receives is: "Why should I vote? Somebody else is going to make this decision for me." He opined that the electoral college is as politicized as any other system, referring to the presidential election of 2000 as an example. He said his understanding of the intent of the Founding Fathers when they developed the electoral college system was based on the fear that the average person who didn't own land didn't necessarily understand politics. But after 200 years, he opined, the average citizen has gone beyond that point; therefore, the use of a one man/one vote system for electing the president makes perfectly good sense. He added that his objection to [HJR 23] has nothing to do with the 2000 presidential election, rather, he simply has a fundamental problem with the electoral college system. CHAIR COGHILL posited that HJR 23 would bring the debate regarding the electoral college system to congress. Number 2658 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, after noting that, "We are the United States and we do have states' rights," opined that who a president is does affect individual states. She said that she refuses to put in a system that allows "that decision" to be made by New York, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, and all those other large cities, which is what would happen with any system other than the electoral college. She voiced agreement with Representative Crawford that there should be parameters around the electors to the effect that once a state "goes in a certain way," its electors follow suit and vote that same way. CHAIR COGHILL noted that 24 states plus Washington D.C. require the electors, either by statute or by pledge, to vote according to the popular vote of their state. REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that there are similarities in demographics between the current United States and the United States at the time the Founding Fathers instituted the electoral college system: now, as then, there are some very populated states and some states with very low populations. He offered that the electoral college system protected the elective system so that the highly populated states could not always and forever dominate the election system over those states that did not have large populations. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said that he disagrees with Representatives Fate and James. He opined that it is still the most populous states that determine who the president is, even under the electoral college system. The states with only three electoral votes, such as Alaska, don't have the impact that more populous states do. He reiterated that the Founding Fathers were afraid that the common person would not be able to make such a complicated decision as voting for a president; the electoral college system was set up originally so that [only] landowners could vote. He opined that although the electoral college system has been in place for over 200 years, it has run its course and it is now time to eradicate that system. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that even though Tacoma, Washington, has about the same population as Alaska, Tacoma does not have three electoral votes. He then referred to the problems Florida had during the 2000 presidential election and noted that only recently has Florida been able to finalize its election results; without the electoral college system, the United States would have had to wait until now to determine who its president would be. Because the electoral college system is in place, a decision was made - regardless of whether it is right or wrong - and "we now have a president." Number 2327 CHAIR COGHILL offered that the electoral college system preserves a republican form of government, versus a pure democracy. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, on the issue of why neither Bush nor Gore visited Alaska during the 2000 presidential campaign, opined that it is because everyone assumed that Alaska would vote for the Republican candidate and so "both candidates just wrote our state off as already being decided." He opined that, "if we had a proportional system, we could make them pay more attention to us." CHAIR COGHILL opined that if it is left to just a popular vote, "we certainly wouldn't get their attention." At least with three votes, Alaska gets some degree of attention, he added. Number 2215 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HJR 23, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, CSHJR 23(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|