Speaking for the left, Rep. John Cardin (D-Md.) asserted that the US is a nation of 100 million voters, and not one of 50 states. That argument for a popular vote system would appear to be an anti-states-rights proposal.
Speaking for the right, Cato Institute fellow John Sample argued that the Electoral College system works, as the Founding Fathers intended, to insure that high-population states dont swamp small ones, a pro-states rights argument.
John Koza, vice president of National Popular Vote, Inc., recognized the difficulty of getting the needed constitutional amendment to kill the E.C., and proposed instead (without actually using the unspeakable two words) that each state exercise its right to do its own thing and use either winner-take-all or an apportioned-per-voting sub-totals system in directing its electors how to do their electing.
Thus, the left opposes apportioning of the U.S. Electoral College vote in California where, in 2004, Kerry garnered 54 percent of the popular vote but got 100 percent of the states 55 electors, but supports it in Florida where Bush garnered 52 percent of the popular vote and 100 percent of the states 27 electors. I guess theres a somewhat flexible states rights principle in evidence, based on these twodare I say contradictorypositions.
Do you remember when the liberal Democrats and other leftists despised states rights and called it a vestige of racism? Now it has suddenly became a convenient (but unspoken) talking point for its demand that each state be free to select the easiest student test money can buy for meeting the national NCLB requirement. I'd guess they're great fans of the Ralph Waldo Emerson quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".