Payday loan limits are misguided

Late last year, the so-called “Michiganders for Fair Lending” launched a ballot initiative that would do anything but make lending fairer in Michigan. They’ve named this monstrosity the “Michigan Payday Loan Interest Rate Cap Initiative,” which would likely drive Michigan lenders out of business, harming working-class Michigan residents in the process.

To understand the harm this would cause, one must understand the people who use these products. Payday loans and other short-term loans are small parts of our financial system that help consumers who have seasonal income or who don’t have access to emergency funds, such as savings accounts, loans from banks, home equity loans and 401(k) loans.

Read more here.

Bizarre election bill, SB2271, must be defeated

Originally Published in the Minot Daily News, 02/20/21

I think we can all agree that transparency is an important core principle of the American election system. Anything that gives the impression that something is being hidden creates doubt in the process and in the results.

That’s why I’m especially concerned about a bill moving through the North Dakota Legislature right now. SB2271 would require the state’s presidential vote count to be kept secret until after the Electoral College meets (about seven weeks after the November election).

Can you even imagine the chaos and consternation that SB2271 would create? Just think back to the last election, when some states stopped counting ballots on Election Day and picked back up the next morning: Even by having to wait a day or two for vote totals, people became suspicious that something nefarious was happening behind the scenes to alter the vote count.

Millions of Americans were frustrated with how the 2020 election was run. Blocking ballot counters from public view, not allowing challengers to see ballots, allowing late votes to arrive in unmarked boxes: These incidents caused furor and raised the specter of fraud. If you think the “stop the steal” reaction to what happened on election night raised emotions, think of what keeping the vote totals secret could do.

Accuracy and integrity are two pillars of a strong election system, along with ballot access and voter privacy. All four pillars must be in balance for the election system to be as strong as it can be. SB2271 would throw the balance completely out of whack.

Who could be sure of the accuracy of an election result without vote totals? Who could have confidence in the integrity of the handling of ballots, the counting of votes, or the reporting of results if there were no numbers against which to verify the process?

If secrecy of the actual vote count were successfully maintained at local voting places under SB2271, then the North Dakota State Canvassing Board would receive the secret election counts from local voting places, add them up in secret, and keep the local and statewide counts secret until after the Electoral College met. It would be impossible for any watchdog group, candidate, political party, media outlet, or ordinary citizen to compare the secretly computed statewide vote recorded with what happened on Election Day at local voting places.

But let’s face it: There’s no way vote totals would remain secret. SB2271’s restrictions on releasing vote totals would apply only to public officials. Someone-a candidate, political party, media outlet, or other-would figure a way to release the vote totals. And that “someone,” no matter who it was, would be a lot less credible than a public official. Do we really want an election system where results of suspicious origin are circulated by messengers of questionable authority? Haven’t we seen well enough what happens when people doubt the legitimacy of the presidential election results?

Bills almost identical to SB2271 were defeated in the South Dakota Senate

— http://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/11895 – by a 32-1 vote in 2020, rejected unanimously by a New Hampshire House committee

— http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill–status/bill–status.aspx?lsr=2557&sy=2020&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2020&txtbillnumber=HB1531 – in 2020, and died in committees in the Mississippi House and Senate already in 2021.

North Dakota would be wise also to reject the bizarre idea of keeping election results secret.

US reforms should help the financially vulnerable

The Domestic Policy Caucus appeared in the Financial Times with an op-ed.

Your article says that US president Joe Biden has tapped Rohit Chopra to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("Battle looms over subprime lending regulation under Biden," Inside Business, February 9).

As you report, Chopra has "spoken out strongly against what he sees as predatory lending practices, in areas from education finance to payday loans". Now activists will be pressing Chopra on a host of these financial reforms and he will probably want to satisfy them with swift and bold action.

I think we can all agree that a government agency like the CFPB should work for consumers.

Read more here.

The more short-term, small-dollar credit options, the better

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to damage many people’s personal finances and has compelled them to seek relief through any number of options, from home equity loans to skipping mortgage payments and more. As the incoming Biden administration makes plans to put America on a path to sustainable economic recovery, it’s critical that lawmakers carefully consider the long-term unintended consequences of measures that are designed to help. One worrisome example is the notion that we can help the underbanked by taking “unaffordable” alternative credit options away from them, which will do more harm than good and isolate millions of already struggling Americans.

Read more here.

Four of Five States are Ignored in the Current System

The current state-based, winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes makes the voters in a handful of battlegrounds states the only relevant voters in presidential elections.

In the current system, presidential candidates have no incentive to campaign in states in which they are either comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. This gives all of the electoral power in every election to a just a handful of tightly contested battleground states.

There will be an estimated 12 battleground states in the upcoming election, leaving 38 states (including Colorado) out of the race. ⁽¹⁾ Nearly four out of five Americans will effectively be ignored by presidential candidates.

In 2016, 94% of campaign events by either candidate occurred in just 12 states. 24 states received no events at all. ⁽²⁾

In 2012, all campaign events occurred in just 12 states. ⁽³⁾

In 2008, 97.7% of campaign events occurred in just 14 states. Maine, Minnesota, West Virginia, Tennessee and the District of Columbia received the remaining 2.3%. The rest of the country was ignored. ⁽⁴⁾

Between 1988 and 2008, two-thirds of states were ignored by presidential campaigns. ⁽⁵⁾

This is not the electoral method that the Founding Fathers envisioned. The winner-take-all method was not designed, anticipated or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is, instead, the product of decades of change stemming from the emergence of political parties in 1796 and the later adoption of winner-take-all statutes in most states. ⁽⁶⁾

States have the constitutional right to allocate electoral votes as they wish. ⁽⁷⁾ Now, as the voices of a majority of Americans are being ignored, is the time for the states to exercise this right.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would make every citizen’s vote equal, no matter their political affiliation or state of residence. It would redistribute accountability of presidential candidates from a handful of states to the country as a whole.

References

(1)   “Identifying the 2020 Battleground States.” Electoral Vote Map, 3 Dec. 2018. electoralvotemap.com, https://electoralvotemap.com/2020-battleground-states/.

(2)   “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.” National Popular Vote, March 8, 2020. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation.

(3)   Koza, John R., et al. Every Vote Equal: A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, 4th ed., National Popular Vote Press, 2013, pp. 33. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/

(4)   Koza, John R., et al. Every Vote Equal: A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, 4th ed., National Popular Vote Press, 2013, pp. 20-22. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/

(5)   Koza, John R., et al. Every Vote Equal: A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, 4th ed., National Popular Vote Press, 2013, p. 11. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/

(6)   Koza, John R., et al. Every Vote Equal: A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, 4th ed., National Popular Vote Press, 2013, p. 78. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/

(7) U.S. Constitution, Article II, section I, clauses 1 and 2. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/provisions

National Popular Vote Puts Rural Voters at Parity with Urban Voters

Claim: The National Popular Vote would give complete control to voters in just a handful of heavily populated states.

Reality: The current state-based winner-take-all method assigns inordinate amounts of importance to the handful of battleground states. National Popular vote would make every vote equal – putting rural voters at parity with urban voters.

National Popular Vote puts rural voters at parity with urban voters.

In 2012, 73 of the 253 post-convention campaign events took place in Ohio.⁽¹⁾ Obama won Ohio by just 3%, taking home all of its electoral votes as a result.⁽²⁾ Romney’s dozens of campaign events in Ohio did nothing to affect the results, as he averaged 47% in polls the month prior to the election.⁽³⁾ Instead, he could have attracted many voters by energizing his base in red states and appealing to swing-voters in blue. But, the state-based winner-take-all method makes those kinds of tactics irrelevant.

Meanwhile, our country’s most rural states are not considered battlegrounds and, as a result, receive no attention from candidates. These rural states are also largely and increasingly conservative, as evidenced by 87% of rural districts voting Republican in the 2018 midterm elections.⁽⁴⁾ They’re not a small chunk of the pie, either; rural areas account for almost exactly the same population as the country’s 100 most populated cities.⁽⁵⁾⁽⁶⁾

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would significantly amplify the voice of every voter, including conservative voters in flyover states, in choosing the president. Anyone who values the power of individuals and who advocates for individual rights should support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact — it represents the ultimate devolution of power from a central government authority to the people.

References

(1) Koza, John R., et al. Every Vote Equal: A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, 4th ed., National Popular Vote Press, 2013, pp. 33. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ 

(2) Federal Elections 2000: Presidential General Election Results by State. Washington, D.C.:Federal Election Commission. https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012pres.pdf

(3) “2012 - Ohio: Romney vs. Obama.” RealClearPolitics. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

(4) Greenblatt, Alan. “Why Rural America Is Increasingly Red.” Governing, July 2016. https://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-rural-voters-governors-races.html

(5) “Largest Cities in the United States by Population.” Ballotpedia,https://ballotpedia.org/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population

(6) "United States Summary: 2010" 2010 Census of Population and Housing, United States Census Bureau, September 2012, https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-1.pdf

Constitutionality and Campaigning in Every State

Claim: The Founding Fathers designed the Electoral College not to be representative of individual citizens, but rather the collective interests of all 50 states. 

Reality: This claim is both historically inaccurate and ignores the reality of our state-by-state winner-take-all method.

 

The Founding Fathers never decided how presidential electors should be chosen. Instead, they left the matter to the states, ⁽¹⁾ as it remains today. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68  in 1788: ⁽²⁾

“A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations” [emphasis added]

It’s clear that the Electoral College was designed to be a deliberative body, whose choices in candidates would be somewhat independent of their states’ citizens. The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is, instead, the product of decades of change stemming from the emergence of political parties in 1796 ⁽³⁾ and the later adoption of winner-take-all statutes in most states.

National Popular Vote does not allow candidates to ignore a majority of states; in fact, it does the opposite.

The current method assigns inordinate amounts of power to tightly contested battleground states. Ohio, for example, was privileged to have 73 of the 253 post-convention campaign events in 2012, while 39 non-battleground states received none. ⁽³⁾

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will force candidates to campaign in even the most partisan states, because winning by an extra 5% or losing by just 1-2% would impact the outcome of an election.

References

(1) U.S. Constitution, Article II, section I, clauses 1 and 2. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/provisions

(2) Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist No. 68. The Federalist. George W. Carey and James McClellan. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2001. 351–52. Print. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0218

(3) Koza, John R., et al. Every Vote Equal: A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, 4th ed., National Popular Vote Press, 2013, pp. 367–443. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/

DPC in MinnPost: Interest-rate cap policies would create a less diverse, less inclusive economy

On October 8, senior advisor to the National Popular Vote, Patrick Rosenstiel, penned an op-ed in the MinnPost discussing interest rate caps and their damaging effects.

In the op-ed, Rosentiel wrote, in part, “Indeed, studies have shown that national and state rate caps on small-dollar loans would have unintended consequences. When policymakers place artificial constraints on credit access, lending to borrowers with means stays steady or increases, but credit “deserts” appear in low-income communities. There is an especially disparate impact on credit access for minority communities, and as the credit access gap grows wider, the economy becomes less diverse and less inclusive.”

Read the full op-ed here.

NPV Interviews with Catalyst

Last month, Patrick Rosenstiel, senior consultant for The National Popular Vote, joined Joe Hamilton in the Catalyst studio prior to his speech at the Suncoast Tiger Bay Club.

During the interview, Rosenstiel said, in part, “If you had a National Popular Vote for president, we don’t know who would have been elected in 2016 and 2000. The principle shortcoming of the current system is that presidential candidates and their campaigns only focus on a handful of battleground states. So being here in Florida, I understand I’m in the heart of the beast, a battleground state that gets all of the attention. But four out of five votes in four out of five states are absolutely ignored during presidential elections.”

Learn more and listen to the full interview here.

NPV at Suncoast Tiger Bay Club

Patrick Rosenstiel, senior consultant of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, recently spoke at the Suncoast Tiger Bay Club about National Popular Vote and the pervasive effects of the Electoral College.

While speaking, Rosenstiel said, in part, “I think a lot of people believe that the current ‘winner-take-all system’ was actually in the United States Constitution or was the founder’s system. Nowhere in the constitution does it talk about the state-based winner take all system. The state based winner take all system was not adopted by a majority of the states until the 11th presidential election. It was adopted in the lead up to the Civil War.”

Learn more and listen to the full speech here.