Last week AB 751’s express trip from introduction on February 15 to a hearing on February 17 caused a stir in the Wisconsin papers and blogosphere. While Save Our States Director Trent England was on the ground there, I jumped into the cyber world to see how Wisconsin voters were responding to the bill.

Almost immediately an alert went out from Wisconsin Family Action who had only just heard of the issue. Within less than 24 hours, they were circulating an online petition, blogs were firing right and left, and talk radio stations had picked up the tune.

Here are some of the articles from the Wisconsin NPV debate.

• “Proposed Legislation Can Circumvent Vote of Wisconsin Residents”
• “State Lawmakers Push Bill Eliminating Electoral College”
• “Call today about AB 751: Elimination of Electoral College Bill”
• “Will They Take Away Your Vote?”
• “Disenfranchising Wisconsin”
• “Editorial: State should go slow on National Popular Vote bill”
• “Why the Electoral College is necessary”
• “They want to CANCEL your VOTES in Wisconsin”

(Read the comments for some stimulating and well populated debate.)

This is the fastest and most vehement citizen response to the NPV bill we’ve seen. In my home state of Washington, newspapers didn’t even know about HB 5599 until after it had passed.

In most states, citizens, media, and particularly legislators have little to no understanding of the practical, political, and historical impact of the bill. Legislators sometimes approach it like a resolution about how elections should work. But this is a radical reversal of American principles and election practices that would underhandedly change our Constitution.

Last year in his testimony before the State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee, Save Our States Director Trent England urged legislators to consider the importance of the issue.

When James Madison was thinking about creating a new constitution he wrote to Thomas Jefferson and asked for some literature to study. He was already one of the most educated people in the young states. Jefferson sent him a trunk-load of books—a few of which were even in English—that Madison felt he had to read, he was compelled to read, before he would tinker with the fundamental structures of our government. I just hope that the members of this committee and the members of our legislature are dedicating the same time and the same study when they consider something this important.

Fortunately for Wisconsin, voters understand. They question the motives of a group that would sneak through a bill that would make such a dramatic change to our most important election.

Earlier this month, the National Popular Vote bill was overwhelmingly defeated in Maine. Save Our State ally Rep. Herb Adams closed his testimony by reminding legislators,

This is not just any compact between states—like lumber lengths, river basins, or mosquito control. This is about electing the leader of the free world and the commander in chief of the mightiest arsenal in the history of the earth.

Wisconsin voters are weighing in on this monumental debate, and as a result, three cosponsors have removed their names from the bill. What happens in Wisconsin—and West Virginia, Alaska, Vermont, Michigan, and every other state in the union—will affect every American voter.

A big thanks to host Jim Schneider and the crew at Crosstalk radio for today’s discussion of the Electoral College versus National Popular Vote. It was my pleasure to be on the program and to talk with so many listeners from around the country.

You can visit the Crosstalk website for a description of the issue and links to listen in several formats or even buy a CD.

One thing we touched on is whether the Electoral College is “anti-democratic.” It’s important to remember, the very idea of a constitution is, in a sense, anti-democratic. We hold the laws passed today up to the Constitution, we test them against it and not the other way around. Why? Because American government isn’t just about doing what 50% +1 want, it’s about protecting individual rights. As the history of the 20th Century shows (and every other century, for that matter), sometimes big groups of people–even majorities–are willing to violate those rights.

The First Amendment, to take just one example, is anti-democratic. It restrains majorities from violating the rights of others to freedom of conscience, speech, press, assembly, and petitioning government. Should we throw out the First Amendment because it sometimes restrains the will of the majority?

The same thing is true of the Electoral College, which usually just influences majorities to be more national and centrist than might otherwise be the case. In pursuit of unity, moderation, and stability–all of which work to protect individual rights–the Electoral College will sometimes (only twice for sure) elect a President who received less popular votes than another candidate.

If all you want is raw majority rule, which is really just another way of saying “might makes right,” then the Electoral College isn’t for you. If, on the other hand, you believe that government exists to protect individual rights–if you think the First Amendment is a good idea–then the Electoral College is just another very good, very American invention.

Note: post updated with links to Crosstalk show archive.

Last week was a lousy one for California-based National Popular Vote. After hiring six lobbyists and spending $80,000 lobbying in Madison, Wisconsin, they got Assembly Elections Committee Chairman Jeff Smith to schedule the bill for a hearing with less than two day’s public notice. And NPV’s lobbyists had convinced three Republicans to join the bill, giving them coveted “bipartisan” status.

But the NPV crew had bitten off more than they could chew. The lack of notice only helped rile up a public rightly skeptical of a process designed to represent California more than Wisconsin. Calls and emails poured into the Capitol. Several people, myself included, showed up to testify about the serious flaws and risks of NPV’s plan.

And all three Republican legislators jumped clear of the NPV bill (pdf). That’s right, NPV in Wisconsin can no longer make any pretense of bipartisanship. Several people in Madison tell me that Steven Foti, NPV’s “Republican” lobbyist there, has lost some credibility by signing on with NPV in the first place. I also heard that at least one Democrat on the Elections Committee opposes the bill.

Will Madison be the next Augusta? In Maine, NPV dumped in money and lobbyists. Save Our States visited once, for less than a day. When leadership–supporting NPV–suddenly pulled the bill to the floor, LD 56 went down almost 2-1. Not a single Republican voted for it and nearly half the Democrats voted against NPV as well.

All this is part of a trend we’ve seen around the country. In Rhode Island, Arkansas, even here in Washington where the bill was enacted last year, the more legislators learn about NPV the less they support it. In Massachusetts, Representative Will Brownsberger, a Democrat who originally cosponsored the NPV bill, explained his vote against it.

In the end, I concluded that, whatever its merits in principle, the proposal creates unacceptable downside risks for our country, risks that are not outweighed by its alleged benefits. …

I gave careful consideration to voting for the NPV just to keep the conversation alive about reform of the Electoral College, but all-in-all I really feel that — lacking a runoff mechanism — the NPV proposal is not sound enough to make a positive statement for change.

Nor, honestly, am I clear in my mind that the Electoral College — which embodies our national history as a union of states — is the root of political evil. Certainly the concept of sending electors to a college is anachronistic, but the formula for the college embodies a balance of power between large and small states.

I am less interested in changing the mechanics and more interested in developing and supporting national candidates who combine truthful vision with the skills to engage to a broad range of people across the nation.

Read more about the debate in Wisconsin:

1. More fallout on Newcomer’s decision to co-sponsor AB751,
2. Disenfranchising Wisconsin,
3. Why the Electoral College is necessary
4. WI Legislators Try Changing Election Laws.

As I walked through the Wisconsin State Capitol last week talking with legislators and legislative staff, I saw the effects of citizens in action. Throughout the day, radio stations were alerting listeners about the bill. Several legislative staff members told me that calls and emails were coming in strong–and strongly against NPV.

The experience illustrates two problems with NPV’s polling, which reliably shows support for direct election of the President.

First, the average American doesn’t spend a lot of time studying and pondering the Electoral College. What a person says when put on the spot by NPV’s telephone poll is almost irrelevant to what he or she might think after considering both sides of the issue. One pollster I know has told me flat out that a poll is meaningful only to the extent that those answering the questions know their answers before being questioned. When we come up with them on the spot, as many NPV poll respondents surely do, we reserve the right to change our minds.

Inside Wisconsin's Capitol

Second, even if a lot of Americans do support some kind of direct national election for President, that position is not a mass motivator (there may have been a window after 2000 when it was, but it isn’t now). NPV is not part of a mass movement; it’s a collection of lobbyists paid with lottery royalties. On the other hand, there is a group of Americans who understand deep down that this nation was set up as a federal constitutional republic. These folks understand this issue, know which side they’re on, and do not soon forget those who betray republican principles.

Mid-morning on Tuesday, two emails alerted me that Wisconsin’s NPV bill (AB 751) had suddenly been introduced and scheduled for a hearing before the Assembly Elections Committee—on Wednesday afternoon, the very next day. Could I come to Madison, one legislator asked, and help educate citizens and other lawmakers and perhaps testify at the hearing?

Barely 12 hours later I was driving to SeaTac Airport for a red-eye flight to Minneapolis and then a commuter flight to Madison. (Thankfully, even with just a few hours notice I found inexpensive airfare.) A taxi dropped me at Wisconsin’s massive Capitol building at 8:30 a.m.

I found the friendly legislator’s office and talked with his staff. They were splendidly well organized and in contact with various media outlets and other groups. I recorded two radio interviews before I set out to talk with legislators and drop off information.

My basic strategy is to find legislators who understand (and support) our basic constitutional framework, including Federalism. I do very little actual lobbying (our direct lobbying is limited by IRS regulations; we always stay far below the threshold). And frankly, those legislators who don’t support our American system probably should support NPV and other schemes to create political instability and precipitate a national crisis. There are plenty of both kinds of legislators in Madison.

I was glad, though, to find a number of legislators and staff who really understood what this issue is about and why it matters. The Electoral College is part of the frameworks of our politics. It creates a set of incentives that help to nationalize (and thus unify) and moderate American politics. And it enforces a system of geographic balance and state-by-state checks on election shenanigans.

There were also some talk radio hosts who got it and spread the word to their listeners. Even as I walked around, legislator’s offices were taking calls from constituents against the NPV bill.

The hearing was held in the North Hearing Room, a vast cube with marble walls in the classical style. The ceiling far above was decorated with murals depicting America’s westward expansion. A flock of NPV lobbyists were there. The committee was assembling. They heard testimony first on a bill to allow local governments to develop their own campaign and ethics rules. Everyone I heard testify was in favor, gushing about how cities and towns should be allowed to serve as “laboratories of democracy.”

Next, NPV sponsor and committee member Representative Kelda Helen Roys presented AB 751. Miss Roys is 30, an attorney, and former executive director of Wisconsin’s chapter of the pro-abortion group NARAL. She repeated NPV’s talking points and fielded a few questions from other committee members. Next, Chairman Jeff Smith called on me. As it turned out, the man who scheduled the hearing on less than two-day’s notice would also make all the opponents go first and give NPV’s lobbyists and other advocates the last word.

I explained to the Committee how the Electoral College quietly balances our political system, refuted many of NPV’s claims, and pointed out how many assumptions and unanswered questions surround NPV. Indeed one of my favorite moments was exposing NPV’s absurd statistic that, if you arbitrarily throw out presidential elections that weren’t “close,” 1 in 7 elections resulted in the person with less popular votes winning the Electoral College. In statistics, you don’t get to move around the denominator to suit your case. And besides, two of the supposed four instances are doubtful.

You can watch or listen to the entire hearing via WisconsinEye.

Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Elections – video, part 1
Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Elections – video, part 2
Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Elections – audio, part 1
Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Elections – audio, part 2

I’m up in part 1, from 1:11:50 to 1:46:28. Representative Roys is immediately before me and First Freedoms Foundation attorney Michael Dean is next with a number of particular legal concerns. Julaine Appling of Wisconsin Family Action follows, on part 2 starting at about 15 minutes.

After the hearing, I was interviewed on Vicki McKenna’s afternoon show, recorded a short video, and said good bye to my new friends in Madison. I was back at SeaTac airport 23 hours after I’d left.

You can read more at the Wisconsin Family Voice blog and Kyle Prast’s Practically Speaking or watch the WISN story. And look for for more on the debate over NPV in Wisconsin and around the country here at SaveOurStates.com.

UPDATE: The Senate companion bill, SB 549, was introduced on Tuesday, February 23 (hat tip: VCY Homefront Wisconsin)

Wisconsin has made it onto NPV’s list of targeted states. Dave Zweifel’s Madison.com article, “Using popular vote to elect president is the way to go,” parrots one of the National Popular Vote organization’s most often-used (and faulty) arguments: that because the Electoral College motivates candidates to campaign in some states (“swing states”) more than others (“safe states”) it should be eliminated as unfair and outdated.

Thankfully, the good people of Wisconsin take Zweifel to task in the comments section. I’ll let them speak for themselves:

• “Why should my vote in Wisconsin have anything to do with New York, Texas, California or other more heavily populated states?”

• “Many of the arguments for popular vote make reference to the uncompetitiveness of certain states. Many states that used to be solidly Democrat are now Republican and vice versa. Where they stand today is not a reason to change the system.”

• “Contrary to popular belief, we are not a democratic nation; we are however a republic made up of 50 democratic states … all of which deserve their share of the pie.”

• “Wisconsin would lose big time! Normally voting pretty independently, we see both Democrats and Republicans campaigning here to sway our vote, that would never happen with a popular vote. Some buildings in Manhattan have more population than Wisconsin cities like Wausau or Chippewa Falls.”

• “Each party would only seek to turn out as many votes as possible in ‘their’ regions of the country … In this scenario, a handful of states and heavily populated cities win while the remaining areas suffer.”

• “The only difference this would make is that instead of certain battleground states getting all the attention, the high population states would.”

The recurring theme in these comments is how the Electoral College actually represents the will of the people better than a national popular vote would. Zweifel calls the Electoral College a “convoluted archaic system,” and claims that NPV would “ensure that the people … determine who is president.” The folks above seem to think the people do. And they’re right.

Battleground states are called battleground states because they’re evenly divided and represent more diverse viewpoints than safe states. Washington is usually safely blue; Texas is usually safely red. Ohio, on the other hand, tends to be purple until just before Election Day. To win a “swing state,” a candidate has to appeal to more than just his buddies. He has to win over a diverse, state-by-state majority.

The balance of power between state and national governments was one of the most contentious issues for the American Founders.

The states were important historically, but also as a way to keep government close to the people and to divide government power into as many hands as practical in order to preserve liberty.

At the Constitutional Convention small states wanted every state to have an equal voice in the national government. Large states desired just the opposite—representation based on population would give them more power.

It was a compromise that created the U.S. Congress, where states are represented equally in the Senate but according to population in the House. That compromise not only broke the deadlock that threatened to derail the Constitution—it became the foundation for the unique American system of Federalism.

The national government was set up to provide national defense, manage foreign trade, and referee disputes between the states—in short, to provide the states with safety and commerce similar to the way the British Empire did for the 13 original colonies. The states were left to manage their internal affairs and to compete with one another; thus the states are sometimes referred to as our “fifty laboratories of democracy.”

Federalism fosters diversity by allowing groups of people in different states to manage their affairs differently, to innovate or remain the same, to address local needs. And by keeping government local, dividing it up, and making it compete, Federalism protects freedom.

The American system of states is not just unique—it has been uniquely successful. Federalism is an American invention worth preserving.