Perez: “The Electoral College Is Not A Creation Of The Constitution”

Sheehan_PerezDemocratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez made a curious point in a Tuesday night speech when he declared “the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution.”  Given the focus of the DNC chief on elections, the misunderstanding of the origin of the electoral college is a bit like a chief of police not knowing that warrants are required by the Fourth Amendment.  To make matters worse, Perez made his statement at the Indiana University Law School.  Just for the record,  Article II of the Constitution states “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

Perez added  “It doesn’t have to be there.” That last point is a bit hard to track.  I have been a long critic of the electoral college, but the only way to get it out of “there” would be a constitutional amendment.

 

 

127 thoughts on “Perez: “The Electoral College Is Not A Creation Of The Constitution””

  1. This is creepy because I’m sure he does know what is and is not in the Constitution. However, he is counting on a vast majority of Democrats believing him anyway.

    They want Clinton on the throne. The DNC and friends have wanted her there before they cheated Bernie from being nominated. They haven’t stopped trying to accomplish this mission. This is just one more tool in their toolbox.

    I read the craziest things coming from the “resistance”. They will believe Perez and get all worked up yet again about installing their queen. News flash resistance: the queen’s policies are in place under Trump. GS is in charge, you got all the wars you wanted, just like under Obama and the IC is fully in place performing mass surveillance and doing their dirty deeds. So quit freaking out. Trump is running things just as your Queen would have!

    So how about some actual resistance? Maybe stop worshiping the IC and start trying to help people who want to restore the rule of law and justice to this nation. Those actions have nothing to do with the installation of your queen on the throne. Instead of wanting your side to be the one ignoring the law and committing war/financial/police state crimes work with people to stop any “side” from destroying our nation by doing those things. That’s what resistance looks like.

    1. Excellent. Unfortunately, they are a form of the Zombie Apocalypse and are unable to listen to or cooperate with healing society. I really believe there is a disease process going on here.

  2. Although my law teaching colleague at GWU Law School, Jonathan Turley, reports that “the only way to get [the Electoral College] out of ‘there’ would be a constitutional amendment,” this is not necessarily completely true.

    Actually, there is a movement which would result in awarding the presidency to the candidate who received the most popular votes, and to achieve this without a constitutional amendment.
    Here’s how Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, explains the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:

    “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome. As of September 2017, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 165 electoral votes, which is 30.7% of the total Electoral College and 61.1% of the votes needed to give the compact legal force.”

    I developed that mathematics – the so-called Banzhaf Index – to show how uneven voting power is under the Electoral College. The analysis shows that, contrary to popular opinion, it is citizens in the most populous states like California, not those in more sparsely populated ones, which have disproportionately more actual voting power.

    PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROFESSOR JOHN BANZHAF

    1. That’s not getting it “out of ‘there'”, but rather running an “end around” around the Electoral College. Abolishment of the Electoral College would require an amendment to the Constitution.

      1. M.Miner,
        I think the constitution allows the states to determine the procedures for selecting and binding ( and alloting ) their electors.
        I can see other problems with NPVIC, but I don’t think the constitution bars states from signing on.

  3. Sorry Jon, I have to disagree. We can NOT have the coasts deciding our elections, this is a republic, and it makes me think that you may exist in a bit of a bubble yourself, though I’d like to believe otherwise. Illegal voting aside (and it DOES happen) this would be a travesty for the other 48 states, voting would be made superfluous overnight based simply on numbers. I can’t help but notice that repealing citizen’s united, the one thing that would actually have an impact, isn’t on anyone’s radar. No, I would fight this, big time. The dems are determined to destroy every one of our freedoms as far as I can tell. The only resonses I ever get to this logic amount to, ‘The other states are irrelevant, anyway.’. No, we are not.

    1. In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

      California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

      Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

      In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote

      In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
      Trump won those states.

      The vote margin in California and New York wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

      In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

      New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
      About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

      New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

      Under a popular-vote system CA and NY would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.

  4. Of course he knows the source of the authority for the E.C. He’s planting a seed and it’s working. While everyone is focused on pointing out the obvious, he’ll refine his comment to be something along the lines of racist, misogynist, slave-owning white men purposely did this to make sure only a select group of hand-picked electors would decide who would become the leader of the executive branch of government.

    Now look at what else they’ve created. The DNC controls large population centers. They oppose cleaning up the voter rolls. They oppose voter ID laws. They oppose increased border security. They support sanctuary cities and states. They support returning voting rights to convicted felons. They oppose school choice thus funneling students through their public indoctrination centers. And if they can somehow convince enough people that the E.C. chose someone wholly incompetent and a threat to national security and our democratic institutions as President, then the constitution gets amended and we get a President based on the popular vote.

    End of story and end of the republic.

    I know, I know, too conspiracy theory for this early in the morning. Well so is the real story of Russian collusion. It’s still difficult to comprehend just how sinister these people are.

    1. Olly – I just started working my way through the document drop for the JFK files and all the FBI files contain is the cover sheets. The guts are missing. I wasn’t a conspiracy theorist before, but I am getting there now. What the FBI has released violates the act.

      1. Paul,
        The label Conspiracy Theorist has been successfully redefined in a negative context. It’s intended to marginalize that subset of our culture that attempts to use critical-thinking as a way to understand the bigger picture of what is actually going on. It’s too easy to get lost in the little things. The corruption moves in little pieces. Nudge here, nudge there, and before you know it you’re hanging over the cliff and you’re left with the only hand up available; extended by the nudger. This is a massive jigsaw puzzle and only a select group has the box showing what the final picture is supposed to look like.

        1. Olly – as you well know, I have been called worse things by better people. 🙂 Doesn’t bother me. I just soldier on. However, I do find this worrisome. There was always talk that the FBI was involved in a cover-up and it appears it is true. Not that they helped shoot JFK, but they are culpable for not watching Oswald and Ruby. Plus, there seems to be some connection with the CPUSA. I am not sure if they are referring to the above ground or underground divisions of CPUSA, because the pages are missing.

          1. There was always talk that the FBI was involved in a cover-up and it appears it is true.

            In your imagination only.

            It is the Secret Service, not the FBI, which is responsible for dignitary protection. Neither agency had any reason to be ‘watching’ Jack Ruby. He owned a couple of nightclubs. As for Oswald, he was a screwball with delusions of grandeur.

            1. TSFS – the FBI was responsible for tailing Oswald who had been both to Russia and Cuba before ending up in Dallas. Did they give the SS a heads-up about him? They knew he had been in contact with a KGB agent in Cuba by phone. Now the real question is: Who was Oswald working for? Us or them?

              1. Paul C. Schulte,..
                I skimmed some articles about the newly-released JFK assassination.
                I didn’t see anything about the FBI being responsible to tail Oswald.
                The FBI agent monitoring Oswald was James Hosty, but I’ve never seen anything about the FBI having a responsibility to put Oswald under surveillance.
                He was “on their radar” because of his past and his activities, but I think Oswald was just one of many cracpotsHosty would loosely monitor.
                There was no shortage of crackpots in Dallas at the time, and I’d bet that Hosty had a fairly large caseloadof people to monitor in “nut country” ( JFK’s description of early 1960s Dallas).

        2. Olly. It’s a shorthand for people whose thought processes begin with a premise that’s emotionally appealing to them and then ‘reason’ deductively from there, creating something analogous to ptolomaic cosmology in an effort to fold, spindle or mutilate the data so it’s consistent with the premise. Any stray piece of information is credible and interesting if it can be used to support the premise. Incorporated into the premise is the notion that history is the plaything of wire-pulling insiders and the theorist is in-the-know recognizing their machinations. Read Tom Bethell about how Jim Garrison’s head worked.

          The handiwork of conspiracy theorists gets you train wrecks like the Clay Shaw case.

          1. the theorist is in-the-know recognizing their machinations.

            That’s quite the statement from you given the fact you stand ready with your red pen to correct every perceived malformed comment.

            I question everything. My background in electronics (Navy) taught me systems thinking. I not only needed to know how a diode or capacitor worked, I needed to understand how it and its circuit impacted the entire system. I assess politics and government in exactly the same way. I begin with my understanding of how the framer’s intended it to work and then try to troubleshoot down to the root cause of why it does not.

            Several years ago @2009, I conducted a root cause analysis over the course of a year, online, with contributors nationally and a few internationally. The question was: We (this constitutional republic) have many problems with many causes but is there one root cause? Throughout that year many suggestions were offered and discussed; economics, social issues, corruption, etc. We always asked two questions: If that problem went away, would all the other problems go away as well? And, is there a root cause of that problem? We always came back to not one but three fundamental problems: 1. Voter ignorance 2. Voter apathy 3. Voter dependence (lack of self-reliance).

            Ultimately, we have entered into the civil society and established our form of government for the expressed purpose of securing equally the natural rights of all. So when we have people opposed to efforts to improve civics literacy, or opposed to protecting our voting system from fraud or encouraging more dependence on government, I question the logic in those positions. They’ll make somewhat passionate arguments that are intended to appeal the emotional side of everyone, while ignoring the negative consequences those efforts bring. Why? Is it simply that those elected to govern are morons? Clearly they will do or say things that no rational person would consider. But when do you zoom out and get a bigger picture of how the little things, the individual acts impact the system?

            This quote by Criss Jami sort of sums this up: The first ingredient to being wrong is to claim that you are right. Geniuses have a knack for raising new questions. Hence by the public they are either admired for their creativity or, even more commonly so, detested for disturbing the daily peace of mind.

            As a disclaimer: I have no idea who Jami was/is nor do I know what his overall philosophy is. I was doing some background and questioning and this quote popped up.

            1. Not sure what your point is here.

              The causes you list are not causes you can alter. People are uninformed and apathetic. There has been some variation in the degree to which this is true and you do have crisis points where it isn’t true. You have particular countries (e.g. Israel and Switzerland) with much less trouble in this regard than others. However, as a rule, following public affairs is not for everyone and need not be. (And, even if they did, positive-law palaeolibertarianism is attractive only to the few).

              A more salient problem is in the realm of how the political class is formed. Not sure what all the vectors there are, but there’s one that’s undeniable: our professional-managerial types are lacking in character compared to their counterparts 60 years ago. We have s***tier elites because, collectively, we are s***tier people.

              1. The causes you list are not causes you can alter.

                I disagree. Not everyone is ignorant of U.S. civics. Not everyone is apathetic to the function of government. Not everyone is dependent on the state for their every need. Logically this means more can become educated, more can get involved and more can become independent. The question I then ask is what/who are the obstacles to these objectives? I don’t even bother with the hypothetical, it will never happen because I believe in the 4th self-evident truth:

                That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

                This may not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen, peacefully or otherwise.

  5. This man is a angry menace. Around every corner he finds racism and grievance.

    The law means nothing to him.

    The king of disparate impact fleeced the banks with spurious lawsuits and redistributed to far left non profits. The democrats can do so much better than this for a leader.

  6. This all seems like he is setting the ground work for the “Discussion” about the e.c. Soon you will be a racist if you believe in the e.c. or the Constitution. This reminds me of the terrifying movie “The Circle” which lays down the foundation of our potential future. The cog keeps moving slowly towards our demise.

    I’m surprised he didn’t ask these lemmings, were is this college, have you ever seen anyone from it, how much is tuition, what is their mascot?

  7. The day the electoral college goes away will be the day the next civil war starts. My Democrat friends here in Ohio agree with me on this because they are not up for loosing their vote in presidential elections either.

    1. A survey of Ohio voters in 2008 showed 70% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

      By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 81% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 65% among Republicans, and 61% among Others.

      The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

      The bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

      The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

      Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

      The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
      All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    2. In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

      Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

      Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

      The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
      Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).

  8. President Trump has said that he does not want to appoint judicial candidates from the Ivy League.

  9. It is disturbing that a man in his position would know so little but then Trump is president. Harvard law has a lot to answer for!

  10. This is bizarre. I also think that he must know better. So, why would he say it; especially in an address to future respected members of the bar? Somebody here must have a conspiracy theory about this….

    1. You think he must know better? Judge Roy Brown didn’t know what DACA is. Mr Trump doesn’t know what anything is. Elected and appointed officials know how to be elected and appointed. That is a specialized science in itself. They know very little else. Anyone who spends time reading books, scholarly articles and the Constitution ipso facto knows more than elected and appointed officials know. Their job is to shake hands, hold babies, pat backs, groom themselves, commute to parties and meetings, give speeches, and listen to lobbyists. There is no time for reading.

      1. So of course, since Judge Brown and Trump don’t know what they are doing, it is perfectly acceptable for the head of the DNC to not know what he is doing either.
        Makes perfect sense.

        1. I think he’s referring to Roy Moore a state appellate judge. That a state appellate judge is not familiar with a recently coined acronym for a federal executive order is not something that bothers normies, but it bothers Chris P. Bacon, who is very adept at demonstrating that partisan Democrats’ self-concept as the smart fraction is an illusion.

  11. He presents another piece of evidence establishing that our country would be better ruled by robots.

    1. Darren Smith – Drudge has an article today headlining that robots will have IQs of 10,000. Just what we need as cashiers at McDonald’s.

      1. Maybe McDucks won’t hire those robots because they are overqualified, hiring teenagers instead. I suppose when some robots have a “brain the size of a planet”, Marvin will never be content making curly fries.

        1. Perhaps in the future we will see automation run full circle, where robots refuse to work low skilled jobs and employers cannot afford to pay what they demand. Maybe then humans will once again have the comparative advantage.

        2. Darren Smith – Marvin could be a 3-star Michelin chef and he wouldn’t be happy. 😉

          1. slohrss29 – are you kidding? You would want to commit suicide before you ordered your McFries. 😉 Marvin is just sooooooo depressing.

        3. Micky D will hire whatever server is cheapest in the long haul.
          If 16 year old’s are guaranteed $15/hour, plus all the other benefits demanded by the govt, then it becomes simply not cost-effective to hire them, and robots it will be.

    2. Darren Smith, would these government robots have to run for election? Would they have the right to vote, as well? I think you just invented the third party, Darren.

  12. How can you be against electoral college knowing that it has saved this nation from an evil thug woman ?

    1. Point of View – you can be against the Electoral College if YOU were trying to get that evil thug woman elected and it stopped you. 🙂 Well, if you read her book there are about 50 things that stopped her. 😉

    1. RudyM – his inability to comprehend the US Constitution makes him perfect to head the DNC.

    2. Rudy M.,
      -Perez graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School.
      They evidently don’t teach Constitutional Law there.

  13. You don’t suppose the DNC is hyping a violent overthrow of the government to get Hillary in office?

  14. Let’s face it, the founders put the electoral college in as an act of misogyny.

    #ImWithHer

  15. Like most people on the left he rightly assumes most people now are too ignorant of our Constituion and its contents to know the truth. Their plan to dumb down everyone they could thru anti American teachers and content in public schools for the past 50 yrs has been very successful. And do not forget to include as many vulgar words as you can utter. That just makes it more appealling to the barbarians you are teaching to dishonor America and all we stand for.

    1. We have a clear statement that the government can’t infringe keeping and bearing ANY weapon, yet we’ve had a complete ban on several types of weapons that no one questions instead of a constitutional amendment to enable those bans. The right to free speech and free assembly are also unequivocally guaranteed, yet you have to pay for permits for both in many public spaces. There is also absolutely nothing in the constitution that gives the Supreme Court authority to declare something unconstitutional – but most of the time when the Supreme Court rules it, it’s treated as fact (conversely, though, President Lincoln completely ignored a Supreme Court ruling). The law is only the law if it’s treated as real. It’s much easier to convince people to ignore the constitution than it is to actually amend it.

      1. Gonzo said, “There is also absolutely nothing in the constitution that gives the Supreme Court authority to declare something unconstitutional . . . ”

        Gonzo, your argument seems to imply that the Constitution itself has the last word; such that, only the Constitution itself can declare, say, an Act of Congress, for instance, to be unconstitutional.

        But if the judicial power vested in the Supreme Court extends to all matters of law and equity arising under the Constitution; and if, in the case of Congressional Acts, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to decide all matters of law and fact; and if the Constitution itself is a matter of law, then surely the constitution gives the Supreme Court the judicial power to decide all matters of law arising from the Constitution itself. Thus, if Congress enacts a law that violates the Constitution, then the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to declare that Congressional Act unconstitutional.

        1. Diane – that is not true. Chief Justice Marshall assumed powers that were not there to add powers to the SC. Nowhere does the Constitution give the SC the power to declare anything unConstitutional.

          1. Paul, it is not false. The Constitution itself is a matter of law. The Constitution extends the judicial power vested in the Supreme Court to all matters of law arising from the Constitution–including the Constitution itself. If the Constitution itself is not a matter of law arising from the Constitution itself, then there would be no judicial check upon either the legislative branch or the executive branch other than the Constitution itself. In which case there would be absolutely nothing to prevent the Congress or the President from asserting that the Constitution means whatever the Congress or the President says it means.

            If the Congress says the Constitution means X while the President says the Constitution does not mean X, then the Supreme Court would be powerless to tell either of the parties in that dispute what the Constitution says. And the Constitution itself would have no one to speak for it. Surely the Supreme Court is empowered to speak for the Constitution. The contrary is patently absurd.

            1. Suppose the Supreme Court had declared The Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, as Scalia would’ve preferred. Suppose President Obama ignored that hypothetical decision. Suppose Congress also ignored that hypothetical decision. That hypothetical decision of the Supreme Court would be utterly powerless. That cannot possibly be what Article III of the Constitution means.

Comments are closed.