July 4, 2009  
Search

[ back ]


One man, many votes

(by Mark J. Bonamo - December 20, 2008)

Hackensack attorney Victor Herlinsky is a member of the Electoral College. Mark J. Bonamo/staff photo

Hackensack attorney Victor Herlinsky is a member of the Electoral College. He cast his vote for President Barack Obama on Dec. 15.

 

On the afternoon of Dec. 15, Victor Herlinsky Jr. voted for president. He didn’t press a button in a voting booth. Instead, he went to Trenton and signed a few official documents that were sent on to Washington. And he didn’t just vote on behalf of himself. He voted for about 580,000 people.

To understand what Herlinsky did, you have to understand one of the most important quirks of American democracy: the Electoral College. Those of you who voted for either Barack Obama or John McCain on Nov. 4 didn’t actually vote for either candidate. As a result of the indirect nature of American presidential elections, you voted for a slate of 15 electors selected by either the Democratic or Republican New Jersey state committees. In other words, you ultimately voted for Herlinsky and 14 of his colleagues. Therefore, inquiring political minds may want to know: how does the Electoral College work? Who is Victor Herlinsky Jr.? And how did he get to vote for fellow New Jerseyans?

Electoral College 101

The Electoral College was conceived by the Founding Fathers in the spirit of compromise. Some feared a direct popular election for president and vice-president would result in a mob-like majority rule that would hurt the interests of smaller states, as well as encourage an unruly number of candidates and political factions. (This was before the advent of the two-party system.) However, the proposed idea of having Congress vote for president and vice-president led detractors to claim that such an election would better reflect the will of the members of Congress than that of the people.

The resulting compromise established the present system. Voters choose between statewide slates of electors who are pledged to vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates of their respective parties. The Constitution allows each state legislature to determine its method of choosing electors. Each state is allowed to choose as many electors as it has representatives and senators in the U.S. Congress (New Jersey has 15). In most states, the ticket that wins the statewide popular vote then receives all of the votes cast by the electors from that state. Only Maine and Nebraska deviate from this “winner-take-all” system by allowing electoral votes to be split if a ticket carries an individual Congressional district. The votes are then counted in early January at a joint session of Congress.

Herlinsky examines his role

Born in Irvington and raised in Bergen County, Herlinsky, 42, a Ridgewood resident, has practiced law since 1991 and has been active in politics ever since. He worked on U.S. Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004, then joined Barack Obama’s effort late in 2006. He served the Obama campaign as coordinator for Bergen County Lawyers for Obama, and helped with Obama’s fund-raising efforts as part of his national finance committee. Herlinsky is also a strong supporter of Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a prominent and early Obama backer. These efforts on the grassroots level in New Jersey led to state Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, chairman of the New Jersey Democratic State Committee, selecting Herlinsky as an elector.

“Because I’d been very involved with the campaign, I was able to get a certain notoriety for supporting Barack,” said Herlinsky, noting that most of the state Democratic establishment (with the exception of Booker and U.S. Rep. Steve Rothman, among several others) did not initially support Obama. “I was lucky enough that they selected me to be on the Electoral College.”

The Electoral College has its allies and enemies. Many Americans were disturbed by the results of the 2000 presidential election in which Democrat Al Gore received over 500,000 more popular votes than Republican George W. Bush, yet lost the Electoral College vote by a 271-to-266 margin. The seeming irrelevancy of the national popular vote, combined with the disproportionate focus on a few swing states, has led many to call for the dismantling of the Electoral College. In January 2008, New Jersey became the second state to approve legislation that would deliver the state’s Electoral College vote to the winner of the national popular vote if enough states endorsed the concept.

However, Herlinsky isn’t sure than a circumvention of the Electoral College’s ability to pick a president is the way to go.

“I do believe in one person, one vote, and I was very disappointed that Al Gore did not become president,” he said. “But I think the Electoral College has some merit to bringing order to the election process. It helps make what can be a very chaotic process a little easier. Overall, the system we have seems to work, and I guess that many people look at the Electoral College as a way to simplify the process. There is a certain amount of decisiveness with the Electoral College that people seem to like. I haven’t seen any significant move towards changing it yet. If you didn’t see that movement after 2000, I’m not so sure you will see it now.”

Keeping the faith

Another wrinkle in the electoral voting process is the occasional phenomenon of the “faithless elector.” At times, electors have cast their votes for individuals other than whom they were pledged to elect, or refused to vote at all. In 1860, four New Jersey electors pledged for Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas voted instead for Republican Abraham Lincoln, While 24 states have laws to punish faithless electors, New Jersey is not one of them. Three days before the election, Herlinsky sat at his Hackensack desk at the law firm of Nowell Amoroso Klein Bierman reading a letter from someone advocating that he change his mind before participating in the Electoral College vote. But Herlinsky remained unfazed.

“I’ve spent the last month just waiting to vote, and I’ll be voting for Barack Obama,” he said. “I’m sure that all the other people will be voting for Barack. He’s just the most exciting candidate that I’ve seen in my lifetime run for president. I think he’s changed the face of politics. I have the last name Herlinsky, which some people have problems pronouncing. Some might say that name would keep me from elected office ultimately because it’s not a name that rolls off your lips. Well, Barack Hussein Obama is now going to be president. I put a lot of effort and emotion into this election, and I feel like I’m part of history. ”

Herlinsky’s personal history with Obama began with a Democratic fundraiser that he co-chaired in Montclair in the summer of 2006 where Obama was a guest speaker. Not long after, it was sealed with a phone call.

“I was driving in my car, and when I picked up, the voice on the other line said ‘Hi, this is Barack Obama. I want to thank you for your support. You’ve been a big help in a state where I need the help.’ I was able to have dinner with him about a month after that. Of course, now that he’s president, I probably won’t be having those phone calls or any more dinners. But I have the memories.”

The real Election Day

Herlinsky would store up a lot more memories before his time as an elector was through. On Dec. 15, the electors around the nation met in the 50 state capitals and the District of Columbia to officially cast the ballots that would reflect the 365-to-173 Electoral College vote in favor of Obama. New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner swore in Herlinsky and 14 other electors on the stage of the Trenton War Memorial auditorium at the 56th meeting of the Electoral College in the Garden State. In front of a crowd of 1,500 spectators, many of them students, Gov. Jon Corzine praised the 73 percent turnout of New Jersey’s 5.4 million registered voters, a record 3.9 million voters, and lauded the 500,000 newly registered voters in the state. Booker, Herlinsky’s friend and political ally, spoke to the crowd’s idealism as they readied to witness New Jersey’s electoral vote.

“I resist the language I hear from friends of mine who often engage in cynical commentary about politics,” Booker said. “Many people look down on the political process… But the reality is that the cynicism has to stop. That’s not what our nation is about. The American political process has made for the greatest nation the world has ever known.”

Shortly thereafter, Herlinsky won his own election. Smiling after his unanimous election as president of the New Jersey Electoral College, he stepped up to the podium and presided over the unanimous election of Barack Obama as president and Joseph Biden as vice-president. A group of eighth-grade students acting in the official capacity of tellers (who collect and count the ballots) handed in the results, and Herlinsky announced them, then spoke to the moment.

“I would personally like to thank on behalf of my fellow electors everyone in this audience for coming and sharing this moment in history and this moment of discovery in our country of how great we have become,” he said.

After the conclusion of the ceremony, Herlinsky felt gratified that he had played his part in history.

“I feel inspired,” he said. “It’s an honor. It’s something that I’ll remember to the end of my days. It’s made whatever I’ve done as a local political activist all worth it. I feel like I did something good for history and good for everybody in my family, and I feel like I did something that’s going to last. We elected a president today.”

E-mail: bonamo@northjersey.com


 

Comments (6)
On December 23, 2008 Alessandro said:

Barack Obama was railroaded into office on the back of George Soros. The only edge Barack had over Hillary Clinton was in the Republican leading Great Plains States Caucus Contest, that is where Barack Obama stole the election. http://www.DailyPUMA.com
 
On December 21, 2008 susan said:

In Gallup polls since 1944, 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 (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Vermont (75%), Maine (71%), Arkansas (74%), California (69%), Connecticut (73%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (70%), Missouri (70%), North Carolina (62%), and Rhode Island (74%). In short, the public believes that the candidate that receives the most votes should get elected.
 
On December 21, 2008 susan said:

It is questionable whether anyone in Congress or elsewhere is more deferential to an incoming President on those occasions when the current system gives him a larger percentage margin in the Electoral College than his margin in the nationwide popular vote. However, if anyone thinks that an exaggerated margin is desirable, the National Popular vote plan would do an even better job of creating this illusion than the current system. Under the National Popular vote bill, the nationwide winning candidate would generally receive an exaggerated margin (roughly 75%) of the votes in the Electoral College in any given presidential election. The reason is that the National Popular Vote bill guarantees that the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC) will receive at least 270 electoral votes (51%) coming from the states belonging to the compact. This bloc is what enables the compact to guarantee the election of the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). Then, in addition to this bloc of 270 or more electoral votes, the nationwide winning candidate would generally receive some additional electoral votes from whichever non-compacting states he happened to carry. Because the non-compacting states would likely be divided approximately equally, the nationwide winning candidate would generally receive an exaggerated margin (roughly 75%) of the votes in the Electoral College. Of course, the current system often does more than exaggerate an incoming President’s percentage margin in the Electoral College as compared to his percentage margin in the nationwide popular vote. In four out of the nation’s 55 presidential elections, the current system has actually given the Presidency to a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes nationwide.
 
On December 21, 2008 susan said:

What the U.S. Constitution says is "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election. In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote, and only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). Since then, as a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
 
On December 21, 2008 susan said:

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
 
On December 21, 2008 susan said:

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections. In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
 

 

[ back ]

 


Hackensack Chronicle
150 River Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
201-646-6921
Kaesu Inc.
Powered By Kaesu
 Copyright 2009