End Runs of the Constitution

In 2000, Al Gore argued that he had won the presidency because he received the majority of the popular vote. It was an odd claim, the rules of election for the president are well established in the Constitution. If you read the commentaries of the debates on the Constitution and specifically Madison's notes on the convention, you understand why the founders developed a somewhat convoluted process of electing the president. Now a California assemblyman would like to create a compact among the states to subvert the process called for in the Constitution. He would pass a state law which would require the electors from California to pledge to vote for the person who got the most votes in the national election. The notion of this is wrong on several levels.

First, if the electoral college is out of date then change the Constitution. Indeed, it is hard to change the Constitution - that was intentional. The process of amendment was designed to ultimately test ideas. While there are occasionally issues which fall off the national agenda because of the complexity of amendment - a lot of really bad ideas (what Madison called "passions of the people") have also been stopped.

At the time of the 2000 election there was a lot of scholarly discussion about whether in the age of universal franchise and instantaneous communication the filter of the electoral college was still appropriate. I believe the initial vision of the founders was a correct one. I can understand the arguments on the other side but I disagree with them. But if the necessity for change is some compelling, the normal process for amendment should be possible.

Second, is the question of the value of a contract. The Constitution is not whatever we want it to be, it is a set of principles that should guide us. The founders wisely included a way to amend the document. And, if we value our instiutions we should not take the cheap shot way of amending outside the normal procedures. There is a large portion of society that believes in the expediency of the moment. In the long term such disrespect for our organized institutions will lead to anarchy. Edmund Burke explored two ways to organize change in society. His comments on the excesses of the French revolution were on point when they were written and they are still applicable now. The utter bankruptcy of French political institutions is, in part, a result of their rather casual attention to constitutional principles.

One wonders why Assemblyman Umberg proposed this change at this time. The liklihood of a) the bill become law in California and b) a majority of states adopting the procedure is small. Is this to remind democrats of the fiction that they actually won the 2000 election? (under the rules of the contest at the time they did not) Will this help pump up turnout in November? Or does Mr. Umberg think so little of the Constitution that he would trash it by proxy?