Illinois Wants Country to Use Popular Vote to Elect President

3 comments April 8th, 2008

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard Democrats wistfully say, “If only we elected the president by the popular vote in 2000,” I could live a very comfortable life.

Well, Illinois this week joined Maryland and New Jersey in the push to choose the U.S. president by popular vote. Currently, the electoral college elects the president. The law, which was sponsored by freshman Rep. LaShawn Ford, D-Chicago, is modeled after the National Popular Vote Plan.

“I think the days of the electoral college is way past its time,” Sen. Terry Link, D-Waukegan.

In 2000, Vice President Al Gore beat President George W. Bush for the nation’s popular vote by 543,895, but lost the electoral college vote 261-277. Critics use this case, and the three other times the president-elect did not win the popular vote, as evidence that the electoral college system does not work.

Over the years, lawmakers, media and other institutions have argued to abolish the electoral college altogether. Others, such as the Cato Institute, have defended the electoral college, saying to eliminate this would go against the will of the founding fathers and the spirit of the Constitution.

The bill that Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed into law Monday does not call for the electoral college to be abolished. Under the bill, Illinois would join other states through an interstate compact to award all of their electoral votes to the person who wins the national popular vote, rather than having electors vote for the candidate who won their state. This would not happen until there are enough states to have a total of 270 electors, which is the tipping point in the electoral college.

For example, under the winner-take-all format, if 51 percent of Illinoisans voted for the Democratic nominee, then all of the state’s 21 electors would vote for the Democrat. Then each state’s electors are counted up and the candidate who receives 270 electoral votes wins.

But under this plan, Illinois and the agreed states, who would consent to this through an interstate agreement provided for in the Constitution, would have to make their electors vote Republican if that candidate won the national vote even if the Democratic candidate won the state.

Similar bills are pending in Vermont, Maine, and Washington state. The plan passed the California legislature last year, but Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

Rep. Paul Froehlich, D-Schaumburg, was a Republican until he changed parties last year. He said Republicans often argue that Democrats push plans like this only because it would help them win. But he pointed out that leading Senate Republicans, Frank Watson and Kirk Dillard both voted for the plan.

Rep. Mike Boland, D-East Moline, said this plan could help increase voter turnout, which is typically higher in swing states because of those voters know their vote is important.

For Rep. Bob Molaro, D-Chicago, this change would force candidates to campaign in every state, not just those considered swing states, such as Ohio and Florida. In 2004, neither presidential candidate stopped in Illinois. This would allow Illinois to catch some of the business, a.k.a. money, that accompanies political campaigns.

Rep. Ken Dunkin, D-Chicago, this plan would help end the disenfranchisement of minorities and help people feel like their vote counts.

“Is this an elite good old boys’ network?” Dunkin asked of the electoral college. “I thought everyone was significant. It’s significant enough when it comes to me getting your taxes … The most basic and the most fundamental principle about being a citizen here in this country is having the right to vote.”

Senate GOP: Stop Berating Business

Add comment April 8th, 2008

Rockford Sen. Dave Syverson, Clare Sen. Brad Burzynski and other Senate Republicans last week unveiled a seven-point economic stimulus plan.

Let’s look at those points, one at a time. First up: The Senate Republicans say Gov. Rod Blagojevich must not “demonize” businesses. From their report:

Businesses not only provide jobs for our
citizens, they also pay the tax revenues
that fund our state budget and allow us to
implement our priorities. Since taking office,
the Governor and his administration have
repeatedly portrayed the business community
as a group of “fat cats” to be taxed and
demeaned, rather than entrepreneurs who
provide our economy with needed jobs, taxes
and investment.

Indeed, Blagojevich has repeatedly vilified Illinois businesses to suit his political needs, saying for instance that they ought to pay their “fair share” in taxes. The Senate GOP report continues:

Today, Illinois is renowned for its
hostile business climate – something which does not
go unnoticed to prospective businesses. The more the
Governor and his allies fuel this notion, the fewer jobs
and investments we will see in Illinois. In addition,
harsh anti-business rhetoric scares other companies
from coming to Illinois and expanding their business.

It’s time to stop the antibusiness
rhetoric and harmful tax-and-spend
proposals that seek to balance the state
budget on the backs of business owners and,
more importantly, the jobs they provide for
our economy.

And now for the kicker:

Demonizing the business community doesn’t
just have a negative impact on the owners of
companies. When hit with higher taxes and
fees, business owners end up passing the
new costs on to their customers – working
families. This is a point even the Governor’s
staunchest supporters concede – during
last year’s committee hearings on the GRT,
a sponsor of the measure, Senate President
Emil Jones, acknowledged: “Any costs
that businesses incur, they pass it on to
consumers.”

So here’s the question for you: Does the governor’s tone truly affect a business’ decision on whether to stay in, or relocate to, Illinois? Clearly, a business will weigh the tax burden in Illinois as compared to neighboring states. But the governor’s tone?