Did Maine Let a Genie Out of the Bottle?

Maine is getting a lot of unexpected, national political attention these days. 

It has to do with how the state votes for the President and Vice President of the United States.

Each state gets a number of votes equal to the total of its senators and representatives. These are votes in the Electoral College, and Maine gets four.

So when you vote for president, you are voting for people whose names are unknown to you, the state’s members of the Electoral College.

The idea behind the Electoral College is that the presidential election is a collection of state elections, reflecting the American federal system.

Each state decides how its electors are chosen.  Throughout American history, all electoral votes cast by each state traditionally went to the winner of the state’s popular vote.

But Maine single-handedly changed that.

In 1985, Maine decided to select its four electors in a different way.  Two are chosen by the statewide popular vote, like the state’s U.S. senators, and two are be chosen based on the vote in each of the two congressional districts, like U.S. representatives.

The result could be that all four electoral votes still go to one presidential candidate, but it would also be possible for a three-to-one split, if a candidate won in one house district.  Since the new law was adopted, Maine’s vote has not been split.

Beginning with the 1992 elections, Nebraska became the second state to adopt this approach.  In 2008, Barack Obama picked up one of the state’s five electoral votes, and John McCain got the other four.

Allowing some voting by congressional district can give a minority a chance to have a voice in the state’s choice, which it does not have in a winner-take-all election. 

Under what is now called the “Maine-Nebraska system,” there are no longer 50 statewide elections (plus three votes for the District of Columbia), apparently contrary to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Though the new system has not been tested in court, it may well be constitutional, representing another case where the Constitution is changed from the original intent.

In last year’s president election, Democrat Obama beat Republican Mitt Romney by about five million votes and won overwhelmingly by 332-206 in the Electoral College vote. 

But, if elections were held across the country on the Maine-Nebraska system, Romney would have won a narrow victory in the Electoral College.

Right now, the Republicans control a majority of state legislatures and have been able to design congressional districts to favor their party.  According to some analysts, their control has given the GOP an extra two percent advantage over what they would have with politically neutral districts.

GOP districting is linked to the Republicans push for states to adopt the “Maine-Nebraska system.”

To see how this would work in practice, let’s look at Pennsylvania.  Obama carried the state by 284,000 votes, while Republicans captured 13 of the 18 congressional seats.  While winning an overwhelming majority of the House seats, the GOP got fewer votes than the Democrats.

Under the Maine-Nebraska system, it is likely that Obama would have received 7 electoral votes (two statewide plus five in districts) instead of all 20.

The problem for the Republicans is that the Democratic candidates get all of the electoral votes in large states like California and New York.  Using the Maine-Nebraska system, the GOP would get a good share of the presidential vote, even in states they did not carry.

A few years ago, after Al Gore won the 2000 popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote, some Democrats pushed for each state to allocate its electoral vote in line with the national popular vote.  In effect, that would end the federal election of the president.

People in high-population states would be making the decision for small states, like Maine.

That idea has faded, but it reflects the same concept as changing to the Maine-Nebraska system:  when you lose an election, don’t change your policies, change the rules of the game.

These proposals are designed to modify the Constitution by stealth instead of a formal amendment. 

The Constitution embodied the concept of a federation of states that is worth safeguarding.  Going to the use of the national popular vote or the Maine-Nebraska system undermines the federal system where states retain some sovereignty.

When states are weakened even in one respect, the entire federal system is watered down.

Perhaps Maine was unaware of the genie it let out of the bottle in 1985.  If it now went back to a statewide election for president, it could send a message to the nation and protect federalism.

Does Second Amendment Ban Gun Control?

No other part of the U.S. Constitution is talked about more than the Second Amendment.

Many people boldly assert their rights under that amendment, often while worrying that the amendment is under attack.

If you missed it, the Second Amendment has to do with the right to “keep and bear” firearms.

Before you stop reading, this column is not advocating or opposing gun control.  It is about the Second Amendment, which has become a central part of modern American life.

The Second Amendment is one of the shortest, consisting of a single sentence: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That seemingly simple sentence has given rise to an almost endless and heated debate about just exactly what right it assures to the people.  Its somewhat unusual grammar, especially the overuse of commas, doesn’t make it any clearer.

Few argue about a couple of reasons for its existence.

First, after domination by the British that clamped down hard on many America colonists, the framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that the people had firearms readily available to protect their country from such control by their new government.

Second, the right to own a gun was widely recognized, and the amendment meant to preserve that right for the people – individual Americans.

Some argued that the right only meant that a person could keep a gun for the purpose of use in a militia to resist a force that would undermine the exercise of other guaranteed rights.

Others said that the individual right to keep a gun was inherent in being a free citizen of the United States.  For them, the Second Amendment became the hallmark of the American concept of individual freedom.

It took 219 years before the Supreme Court, the body responsible for the last word on what the Constitution means, settled the question.

In 2008, it ruled that the Second Amendment put into the Constitution each person’s right to own guns and carry them.  It overturned a law that effectively banned guns in Washington, D.C.

What about the language on the need for a militia?  In effect, the Court said that people had the right to guns if for no other reason than for use in a militia, but that was not the only basis for the right.

Because the debate over an individual’s right to own a gun had been settled, the decision found favor with opponents of gun control, the National Rifle Association proclaiming: “This is a great moment in American history.”

To those favoring the more limited view, the decision looked partisan and ideological, though they conceded that it is the binding answer.  But it was not the end of the debate.

Some, like the NRA, see almost any gun control law as a move to eliminate the right to gun ownership.  Limiting gun ownership, they believe, may mean that the government will also erode other inherent American liberties.

Some worry that the federal government is becoming as undemocratic as it was under the British in the 1770s.  They seem to believe that taxation is despotism, so guns must be kept ready.

Because the Second Amendment embodies the concept of freedom, they say, it must not be limited. For them, the right to gun ownership is absolute.

While the Court disappointed those who believed in a limited right to gun ownership and pleased opponents of gun control, it did not adopt the absolute position, writing: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

It found that history showed that “courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

It said that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

After the Newtown school killings, President Obama has proposed new gun controls, but none apparently going beyond the Supreme Court ruling.  His opponents say such proposals erode freedom and, in their view, this one untouchable right.

The debate is now about whether the Second Amendment right is so absolute that there can be no new limits or if the conservative Supreme Court was right in finding that limits are allowed, even necessary.

Politicians Abandon Shared Goals, Historic Practices

Maine Gov. Paul LePage refuses to meet with the newly elected President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House.  He’s a Republican, and they are Democrats.

It is a one-sided war, because the Democrats have even offered to take LePage out to dinner.  He refuses any of their efforts to talk, ostensibly because he does not like the Democratic Party making videos of his public speeches.

This apparently unprecedented breakdown in a basic and necessary working relationship is a symptom of a dangerous development in government, state and federal.

As much as we like to believe that we have a government of laws, we understand that our system works because those who govern have a shared view of how to deal with their disagreements and work for the public interest.

Or at least, they used to have such a shared understanding.

These days, in Maine and in Washington, that sense of common purpose seems to have disappeared.

In his first two years, LePage had GOP majorities in the Legislature and had no trouble talking to its leaders.  Now facing Democrats, he uses a weak excuse for not meeting with them to do the people’s business.  Instead, he says they should be content to meet with his staff.

His position reflects a misunderstanding of the role of the state’s chief executive, who should lead the state not just his party.

LePage has also refused to allow the issuance of state bonds that have been approved by the Legislature and the people.  He imposed his personal policy in a matter that was supposed to be an administrative action not subject to his veto.

The voters expect road repairs and other actions that don’t happen because of his policy.

In Washington, much the same is happening.

Since the early 20^th Century, Congress has routinely approved increases in the ceiling on the national debt to cover appropriations of public funds that it has already made.  Any opposition has been mere political grandstanding, not a real attempt to gum up the works.

Now, the Republicans use their ability to prevent an increase in the debt ceiling as a way to repeal previous spending commitments.  That breaks a long-standing way of doing business, recognized over more than a century by both parties.

Democratic leaders have urged President Obama to use a provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to issue debt even if the debt ceiling is not raised.  Obama, who used to teach constitutional law, has said he does not think it allows him to do what they ask.

For the time being, at least, the President wants to preserve the common understanding even if that makes his life more difficult.  He sticks to the idea that the debt ceiling is only a formality.

Recently, Obama has announced some nominations for key positions in his cabinet.  Some Republicans say they will oppose and may even block those nominations, because they disagree with policy positions taken by the nominees many years in the past.

The system used to allow the President, who after all had won the only national election the country has, to pick his own team.  Presumably, his appointees will follow his policy lead and not be able to pursue their own personal agendas.

Some Republicans in Congress seem to believe that the election meant nothing and they should tell the President whom he can choose, thus undermining his ability to carry out his policies.

In fact, some GOP House members argue that their district elections means as much as the election of the President.  The country has not traditionally equated a member of Congress with the President when it comes to governing.

And then there’s the filibuster.  Even if it is somewhat modified this year, it will continue to allow a Senate minority to prevent hundreds of bills from coming to a vote.  That’s plainly contrary to the Constitution.

All of these actions undermine the ability of government to function and to adopt laws to meet public needs.  The fabric of the common commitment to make government function has been badly damaged by those in government who would rather undermine the system than have measures adopted which they oppose.

The proof lies in the work of Congress.  The session that ended early in January produced the fewest pieces of real legislation, excluding the naming of post offices, in decades, even less than the famous “Do-Nothing Congress” of 1948.

What seems to be missing is a sense in either the Congress or the Blaine House that government owes it to the voters to preserve the basic understandings essential to a functioning democracy – and produce results. 

Partisanship won’t go away easily or soon

Many people, including me, complain about political partisanship these days. If only the politicians in Washington would put the national interest ahead of partisan wrangling, our government would produce positive results, we say.

In other words, it’s all the fault of the politicians.

Many years ago, Pogo Possum, a famous cartoon character, said, “I have seen the enemy, and he is us.”

The problem is not simply irresponsible politicians; it is mainly the people: Us. If you look at Congress state by state, it becomes evident how well it reflects the electorate. Using a rating system that combines the findings of conservative and liberal organizations, I found that during the last two years, the Senate had 14 conservative state delegations. All had two Republican senators.

On the other side, 18 states came out liberal, all having two Democratic senators.

All but one of the remaining 18 states, with apparently moderate delegations, were balanced with a senator from each party. Maine had moderate representation, with both senators being members of the same party – the GOP. That unique standing has disappeared with the election of independent Angus King.

Maine aside, the moderate label was an illusion, because it was usually an average of one conservative and one liberal. The same is pretty much true of House delegations, though the result was somewhat less clear because the varying mix of parties among states. Maine’s House delegation, composed of two Democrats, came out on the liberal side.

These divisions seem likely to remain for quite a while. Most members of either house of Congress are elected by comfortable margins. Relatively few Senate or House seats are decided in truly close elections.

There are at least two causes for the political purity of most states and congressional districts. In laying out House districts every 10 years, state legislatures manufacture safe seats for the party in control. But that also means that the opposition is packed into as few districts as possible, which makes their seats safe as well.

And people tend to dwell in the same areas as others holding similar political views. The coastal states are mainly Democratic, while the Republicans are concentrated inland.

Not only is that true in Congress, but in last year’s presidential election, the same picture emerges. President Obama carried 26 states plus D.C., and only nine were inland. Mitt Romney carried 24 states, but only seven were on the coast.

The center of the country, less populated than along the coasts, is GOP territory, but the country is increasingly framed by Democratic states.

Safe seats and political geography yield the conclusion that the division in Congress reflects the division in the country as a whole.

That would make ending partisanship seem unlikely. The people we elect will pursue the policies of the people who elect them. They have no incentive to take risky positions to promote compromise, when that would not win them many votes.

Though many voters claim to want compromise, they may mean that all of the concessions have to come from the other side. That’s probably because of living in liberal or conservative areas, where they rarely get to hear much of the opposing view.

More than calls for compromise is needed. Something would have to change in the country and affect the way people vote before the deep political divisions lessen.

Political unity has historically followed a national catastrophe like the Civil War, the Great Depression, or the second World War. In other words, if the economy or some other factor affecting the entire country gets bad enough, either a broad consensus emerges or a single party gains control.

Such a fraught path toward consensus is not to be desired. But it is possible if the federal debt grows too large or the economy heads back into deep recession or the United States finds itself at war.

A less disruptive alternative may be happening. Two factors may be moving the country toward Democratic majority control.

Demographic change – women becoming an even stronger majority of the electorate and the growth of Hispanic voting – appears likely to turn some states from Republican to Democratic.

And the GOP itself may push the Northeast further toward the Democrats by its obvious indifference to the region.

For example, ignoring urgent appeals from members of their own party, House Republicans have delayed aid to areas affected by Hurricane Sandy. And of the 21 GOP committee chairs in the new House, only one comes from the Northeast, but Texas and Michigan have four each.

For the time being, the deep partisan divide persists, and there’s little chance of constructive compromise before the 2014 elections.