Tara Ross is the author of Why We Need the Electoral College and We Elect a President: The Story of our Electoral College.
The Electoral College is on the chopping block — again. Many of those working against the institution are Democrats, driven by upset over the 2016 election. Now, however, anti-Electoral College activists are hoping to get Republicans on board with their idea.
NPV’s plan will not work without the support of a few red or purple states. But don’t be fooled. The Electoral College is not partisan. Anyone who strives to change it for political purposes will be disappointed.
The legislation at issue is the so-called National Popular Vote bill. NPV asks state legislators to approve an interstate compact — a simple contract among states. Signatory states agree to award their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of state outcomes. The contract would go into effect when states holding 270 electors have signed. So far, fifteen states plus Washington, D.C. (196 electors) have agreed to the plan.
Each of those fifteen states is a blue state. How unsurprising, then, that some NPV advocates are now working to convince Republicans that elimination of the system will serve their interests. There simply are not enough blue states to get all the way up to 270 electors.
One NPV advocate has argued, for instance, that Republicans must move to a direct election system because of changing demographics: Republicans are “going to lose their ability to win the necessary swing state of Florida” soon. Another NPV consultant recently tried to scare up support by noting that the “so-called ‘blue wall’ is real.” Republicans cannot expect to win those states in 2020. Worried about the constitutionality of all this? Don’t worry, another consultant soothes, “there is a conservative story in favor of a National Popular Vote.”
There is no “conservative story” for ditching constitutional provisions simply because they might work out badly for your political party in the short term. The Founders would surely be horrified at such a notion. After all, they were more concerned with what will serve the country over the course of decades and generations. They were students of history who knew that simple democracies are dangerous: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner is unjust and tyrannical. Instead, the Founders created a republic — a government that would rely upon checks, balances, and separation of powers to protect the people from bare, emotional, or arbitrary mob rule.
The sheep should not get eaten for dinner just because he’s outnumbered.
Nevertheless, NPV advocates are trying to convince Republicans and conservatives to adopt their dangerous idea based on a few demonstrably false arguments:
Myth: In the current system, only swing states are important.
Fact: Safe states are also vitally important. Democrats do not want to lose California, just as Republicans do not want to lose Texas. In 2016, Hillary Clinton took her “blue wall” states for granted. Those states got tired of being ignored, went red, and made their presence felt. No state can be ignored. Every state matters.
Myth: In the current system, rural and small states don’t matter.
Fact: It’s the opposite. Consider that Mike Pence was dispatched to shore up support in the small (allegedly safe) state of Utah in October 2016 when it threatened to vote third-party. If small states are unimportant, then Republicans would not have worried about a small state going rogue. Likewise, how can West Virginia’s effect on the 2000 election be explained, if small states do not matter? At the time, West Virginia was a safe blue state. George W. Bush saw an opportunity to flip it. He did, and the little state gave him the presidency. Bush could not have won without West Virginia in his corner.
Myth: Only one-sixth of the population lives in the top 100 biggest cities. NPV cannot create an overemphasis on urban areas, as some people fear. There aren’t enough voters.
Fact: Real life can get in the way of mathematical theory. Candidates have limited time and resources. Urban areas will become disproportionately important in a direct election system, simply because it is the most efficient use of time and money. In 2016, Hillary Clinton received 20 percent of her vote from only two big states, New York and California — most of her votes there were from big cities. Clinton was penalized for her poor strategy under the existing system, but things will surely get worse in a new system that rewards candidates for driving up votes in such a manner.
Myth: NPV will hinder voter fraud.
Fact: It’s the opposite (again). With the Electoral College in place, dishonest actors must predict in advance where stolen votes will matter. But if one person can make such a prediction, then others can too. Problematic areas are closely watched, making fraud more difficult. Without the Electoral College, everything changes. In this new system, any vote stolen in any part of the country would make a difference. Those who are trying to prevent fraud would need to be on defense in every single precinct, nationwide. Stealing votes would become easier.
Myth: Florida will turn blue soon. Or the blue wall states will revert to voting Democrat. Republicans can not win without these states. They need NPV.
Fact: As a matter of history, the Electoral College rewards the party that does the best job of coalition building. If Republicans want to win future elections, they should not eliminate the Electoral College. They should look inward to see what has gone awry. Why has coalition building become so tough? How can Republicans once again build strong coalitions as they did in the 1980s? This strategy works for Democrats, too.
Myth: NPV is constitutional because Article II gives the states broad authority to direct the appointment of electors.
Fact: States have broad authority to act, but Article II does not give them discretion to violate other portions of the Constitution. A state could not, for instance, hold an election in which only men get to vote. Such an election would violate the 19th Amendment. NPV’s legislation would face serious constitutional challenges because its compact flies in the face of the formal constitutional amendment process laid out in Article V.
NPV’s effort to effectively eliminate the Electoral College should be rejected. Americans would be better off remembering why our Founders created the Electoral College in the first place.
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention spent the summer of 1787 in an intense, philosophical discussion: How can a nation composed of sovereign states, both large and small, govern itself? How can a diverse people be represented during presidential elections? What system ensures that the voice of the people is heard, but also prevents tyranny of the majority?
The Electoral College was the answer to these questions then — and it remains the best answer today.