A Retraction: Walberg was not speaking about Proposal 2
I made a fundamental error in my post from yesterday about Walberg's call in to this radio show. I did not include the radio host's full question in the original post, which I have now updated to include that. I misunderstood Delaney's question as pertaining to Michigan's ballot initiative, Proposal 2, which is an anti-gerrymandering referendum. I was wrong. His question pertained to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:
Delany in the Morning– Coldwater, MI
Radio host, Ken Delaney: "Real quick, in the Michigan legislature, it's been kind of quiet, but one of a number of states in the U.S. that's looking at modifying how we do the electoral college, and how the votes are actually counted, or applied in regards to the electoral college. Have you followed that much? And where do you weigh in on it?"
Walberg: "Oh, I have. And It's a dangerous, dangerous proposal. I'm very, very strongly opposed to it. When you say that, for instance, using last year as an example: Michigan voted for, in majority, voted for Donald Trump. They didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. Had this been in place last year, it would have said, because the popular vote across the nation, fueled by the major cities of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, etcetera – because the popular vote went for Hillary, but the electoral college vote went for President Trump, Michigan would've not had a choice."
"Even though we voted for Trump, in majority here, we would have had to go with the popular vote of the rest of the nation. Thus, giving away - giving away our right to say, at this point in time, we voted for the one who ultimately became President. It would change the whole electoral process which was put in place very thoughtfully to make sure that while everybody voted, we want to count all the votes, yet, we want to make sure that the rural areas, the suburban areas, the smaller areas of our country, have just as much right to choose a President, as the major cities."
"And so, no. I'm very much opposed to it. I'm glad that the state Senate has chosen not to take it up for a vote in committee, but to look at it still further. I think that there are better ways of doing that. I would support, say, one solution of saying, we select our electoral voters by Congressional District. So, that means my 7thDistrict, if it had gone for Hillary, or if it had gone for Trump, which it did, would have its elector go to electoral college, and their vote would have been counted for President. Washtenaw County would've gone for Hillary. That portion of the District that Debbie Dingell represents. And, I can see that. It doesn't do away with the State's ability to control by themselves, what their electoral college voters will do, but it still keeps that as the primary reason, and purpose for electing the President."
Delaney: "All right, good stuff. Tim, thanks for the update on that."
Audio (4:45 mark): https://wtvbam.com/podcasts/delaney-in-the-morning-1/67/congressman-tim-walberg-16/
I stand by my earlier criticism of Walberg describing 2016's elections as, "last year".
It turns out that there is legislation going through Michigan's state congress to enter into a compact with other states, to award our electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote winner. Here is a link to a site that is following that legislation in Michigan, and other states. Several states have already passed legislation to join this compact: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state/mi
Again, I was in error in my earlier post. I apologize for the issuing that misinformation, and I have now issued open retractions to all of the places that I had shared my earlier erroneous report. I will be happy to issue quick retractions and corrections, regarding any other errors in any of my other reports. On a fundamental level, I care about being factual in these reports, and will always be open about any errors that I make.
Labels: District 7, Michigan, Retraction, Tim Walberg