Election Archives - Joe Ricketts

July 24, 2019March 2, 2020

The Electoral College End-Around Takes the ‘States’ out of the ‘United States’

If George W. Bush hadn’t won the presidency in 2000, and Donald Trump hadn’t won the presidency in 2016, would anyone be talking about doing away with the electoral college?

I find myself pondering that question as more Democrats come out in favor of abolishing our presidential election system, and more states hitch their wagons to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC or NPV).

Since several legislatures have actually passed bills to join the NPVIC, while no one is introducing a Constitutional amendment to end the electoral college, the former effort seems more serious.

The NPVIC is designed to sidestep the electoral college rather than overriding it. If enacted, all states who sign on would require that their presidential electors vote for the winner of the popular vote nationwide. The compact would come into effect once states totaling 270 electors join. Right now they’re 89 electors short, but there’s clearly momentum.

We ought to think about what the NPVIC would mean.

Setting aside the many legal and political issues with this scheme, does it seem fair that if you and people across your state vote differently from the majority of voters overall, your state should be forced to go along with the majority?

The NPVIC also begs the question: If the states are going to cede their power over something as important as the presidency, why have states at all?

Now some supporters of the abolition of the electoral college might like to just have a national government. They might prefer that America resemble the European Union. How’s that working out across the pond?

But joking aside, these folks clearly haven’t thought through the consequences of further reducing the power of the states, which best represent the people. And remember, the federal government didn’t create the states. The states created the federal government through the careful compromise of the Constitution, of which the electoral college was an important part.

It would also seem to me that the way in which certain states are going about this compact is too clever by half.

If you want to junk the electoral college and replace it with a popular vote, the right way to do it is by amending the Constitution. The NPVIC doesn’t touch the Constitution, which means it’s a Constitutional end-around. Why won’t NPVIC proponents just make their case to the public and push to change the Constitution? Well, they must know this is not something the American people overwhelmingly want. History proves this out. There have been more than 700 attempts to reform or get rid of the electoral college in Congress. They’ve all failed, and with good reason.

The very purpose of the Constitution was to make it so that fundamental change is very hard, and can only be accomplished when the states are truly united in agreement.

The NPVIC is not what the Founders had in mind. Forgive me for thinking they had a little bit more wisdom than politicians in this charged partisan era.

Remember why the Founders set up the electoral college. In part, it was to ensure that people from big states and small states, dense urban areas and sparsely populated rural ones, Wall Street and Main Street were all fairly represented.

Those seeking the presidency would have to appeal to everyone across this richly diverse nation. We don’t elect the president of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. We elect the president of the United States.

And contrary to what many of our leaders tell us, we are a republic, not a pure democracy – a simple popular vote doesn’t cut it.

The Founders feared pure democracy because it meant 50 percent plus one of the voters could oppress the other 49.99 percent. They called this “tyranny of the majority,” or mob rule.

The Founders wanted to make it tough to radically alter the Constitution, just like they wanted to make it hard for any group to impose its will on any another (including those on the coasts from dominating “flyover country”).

This is why we have a Bill of Rights, checks and balances, the separation of powers, federalism and yes, the electoral college.

Pulling the electoral college pillar out of our Constitution, or sidestepping it would destabilize and undermine the entire structure of our government.

I can’t help but think that this anti-electoral college wave is really about people who have lost trying to change the rules of the game, rather than accepting defeat and figuring out what they can do to win next time.

And I can’t help but think that they are ignoring the fact that we are a republican union of states, not a democratic union of states in name only.

November 2, 2017March 4, 2020

Attacks on President Trump Show the Political Class Has Learned Nothing

The spat between President Donald Trump and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) reveals a great deal about how little the political class has learned from the president’s election, and just how out of touch with the American people it remains.

Nearly 63 million citizens, red and blue alike, voted for President Trump as a populist, bull in a china shop, change candidate. His election over 16 accomplished primary opponents and a Clinton machine backed by practically all of the media and popular culture represented a remarkable rejection of the country’s political elite.

Part of what the American people rejected was the agenda of the Washington D.C. “smart set.” The “forgotten men and women” who voted for President Trump held career politicians responsible for disasters foreign and domestic, from the wars they often sent other people’s children to die in, to the immigration policies and trade deals they cut that millions of Americans felt violated their sovereignty and cost them their jobs. Simply put, the public felt that under presidents Democrat and Republican its interests were not taken into account, or worse directly attacked. While the lives of millions of Americans got worse, they saw the lives of elites getting better – the politicians grew more powerful and their cronies richer.

Trump’s victory was a promise to the people to drain this “swamp.” He promised these forgotten Americans a seat at the bargaining table. Business as usual was over. So too was the political correctness that Americans had grown sick and tired of. The people wanted representatives who were honest in calling things the way they saw them, and weren’t afraid to ruffle feathers.

Naturally, in the months since President Trump’s election, those who had done well under the political status quo have fought the president’s agenda tooth and nail. And they might dislike the president’s style even more than his substance.

The “resistance” to the president includes members of his own party. Republican Sen. Bob Corker’s bout with President Trump over his approach to foreign policy, among other things, are just the latest indicator that the D.C. elite cannot come to terms with President Trump’s victory or what it represented.

Sen. Corker, a high-ranking member of the senate when it comes to foreign policy, in a recent interview pleaded with President Trump to “leave it [foreign policy] to the professionals…” i.e. turn over the keys to the “experts” in his cabinet, and Congressmen like himself. Perhaps Sen. Corker forgot that President Trump’s advisors serve at his pleasure, and their job is to execute his agenda – which is the agenda the American people voted for.

Sen. Corker also disrespectfully referred to the White House as an “adult day care center.” He said he “hope[s] the staff over there [at the White House] would figure out ways of controlling” the president. It is this very condescension that the president’s voters rejected in electing him. And the idea that the president shouldn’t be free to speak his mind – something the American people rewarded him for with their votes – further illustrates Sen. Corker’s disdain for their wishes.

The senator’s view is also inconsistent with the system of government our Founders envisioned. Many have argued that the ideal was for government to be populated by citizen legislators, who humbly served and faithfully represented their communities, and then went back to their families and jobs. There is evidence for this view. As James Madison recorded in his Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, Rhode Island’s Roger Sherman said that “Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of Govt. they would acquire the habits of the place which might differ from those of their Constituents.” Roger Sherman, like Donald Trump, was anti-swamp.

Relatedly, and more importantly, the Founders argued that the legitimacy of government hinged upon the consent of the governed. In a republic, politicians are supposed to represent the people, not become consumed by the trappings of their office. Does a political class dead-set on thwarting President Trump’s agenda – thwarting the agenda Americans voted for – seem like it’s doing a good job of representing them?

Now we should not be surprised that the president is encountering all of this resistance. Whether in business or politics, bureaucracies are resistant to change agents because bureaucrats care most about retaining their power — keeping the gravy train going. But it is those who come at problems from a fresh perspective, the “disruptors” who challenge conventional wisdom, that are essential to ensuring dynamism and growth. Doing the same thing again over and over again, and in the estimation of millions of Americans failing them, defines insanity.

The Trump candidacy was about taking a sledgehammer to the political establishment. The American people preferred the successful businessman to the credentialed career politicians and bureaucrats.

Just like a business that fails to serve its customers well, a political system that fails to serve its citizens must be shaken up, or face certain disaster. For millions of Americans, President Trump was a response to this impending disaster. Politicians like Sen. Corker ought to figure out ways to support the people’s agenda, rather than attacking their change agent.

August 22, 2012March 5, 2020

A Great Decision

I’ll leave it to the pundits to speculate about what led Mitt Romney to choose Paul Ryan as his running mate. But as far I’m concerned, it was a great decision. As someone who is deeply concerned about how out-of-control federal spending threatens to deprive future generations of the economic opportunity people of my generation enjoyed, I have been an enthusiastic supporter of Rep. Ryan and his serious approach to balancing the federal budget. But the best thing about his addition to the ticket is that it guarantees that an issue that ranks among the most serious facing our country today – the menace posed by our growing debt – will be central to the debate in this year’s Presidential campaign. And that’s good news for all Americans.

June 13, 2012March 5, 2020

For the Record

Back on May 17, The New York Times kicked off a feeding frenzy by the mainstream media with a front-page article that purported to describe my political activities. Now that the initial brouhaha has died down a bit, I thought this might be a good time to set the record straight.

Anybody who knows me will tell you that I’ve never made a secret of my deep conviction that this country desperately needs to change its fiscal course if we’re to preserve opportunity for future generations. This starts with making sure we’ve got a President in the White House who is truly committed to sound fiscal policy.

As an entrepreneur, I have always believed in the importance of “putting your money where your mouth is.” And in this spirit, I have always been open about my intention to exercise my right to free speech by putting my own money behind a campaign to elect political leaders this November – including a President – who are committed to getting our fiscal ship back on course.

The first step I took in this regard was to interview a number of political consultants who might help the group I founded, the Ending Spending Action Fund, mount such a campaign. One of these consultants was an advertising man named Fred Davis. I first met Mr. Davis in January at his office in Los Angeles, where he showed me some samples of his work from previous campaigns. I had a second meeting with him in New York several weeks later, at which time I asked him to put together a proposal for a campaign. Mr. Davis presented his proposal at a third meeting in Chicago on Thursday, May 10. I was not at this meeting and only received a copy of the proposal the following Saturday afternoon. I read it that Sunday afternoon and returned it to my son Peter, telling him that my response was negative.

The following Thursday, May 17, The New York Times published its article about Mr. Davis’s proposal. It’s entirely possible that The Times’s reporters actually saw the proposal before I did.

After reading The Times story, TV commentator Joe Scarborough called it “phony journalism” and said the paper was “shamelessly cheerleading for Democrats.” Certainly, the article left a very misleading impression that resulted in a lot of misinformation circulating in the press and on the Internet. But as the old saying goes, the dogs bark and the caravan moves on. My plans have not been affected by any of this. I still intend to do what I can this year to help elect political leaders who share my commitment to economic responsibility.

To me, this is not a matter of Republicans versus Democrats. It’s a matter of common sense and good policy. Indeed, if President Obama were to introduce a balanced budget and a credible plan to reduce the national debt, I would seriously consider supporting his re-election. I love America and its promise of opportunity. I want the same opportunities I enjoyed to be available to future generations of Americans. This is not going to happen unless we all take action to make it happen. And that’s just what I plan to do.