The Electoral College, Federalism and a Dangerous Shortcut

Posted on by

There is growing momentum among Democratic-controlled states to join the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.” Under this plan, states would give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, even if their own voters chose someone else.

This renewed push comes after last week’s elections. But as Bill White wrote in a great Mcall column, it wasn’t so much a “blue wave” as an “orange crush.” Meaning, voters were rejecting Trump, not necessarily embracing progressive policies including those to drastically change how we elect the President.

But back to the compact. It’s a bad idea for several reasons. There’s an old saying about the Electoral College that it’s designed to give a farmer in Iowa the same voice as a banker in Manhattan. That’s perhaps an oversimplification, but it does get to the main point.

That is Presidential elections should reflect the interests of a diverse electorate across the entire country, not just those in concentrated in major population centers.

Why do we have an Electoral College?

Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors”

The founders believed states should have a voice in choosing the president because America is a union of states, not just one large voting population. They wanted to balance the interests of large and small states. They recognized that we’re a diverse country with different needs and interests.

This compact undermines that system.

If Pennsylvania joined, our voters could overwhelmingly support one candidate, but all 19 of our electoral votes could go to someone else because of how the rest of the country voted.

Think about that. Pennsylvania could vote one way, but our electoral votes would go the other way.

“The people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors.” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68

Lastly, we have a constitutional amendment process for a reason.

Changing how we elect the president is a major constitutional decision. The founders made it difficult purposely. They created a very high bar requiring broad agreement across the country to make changes. But it is not unsurmountable. The US constitution has been amended 27 times.

This compact attempts to end around that entire system by bypassing the amendment process. A huge flag. Whether it’s constitutional is still an open legal question. But even if it’s legal, that doesn’t make it right.

If we want to replace the Electoral College, then let’s debate it and amend the Constitution. I would argue against. But what we definitely shouldn’t do is use a legal workaround to make such a major change.

Bigger problem is the usual problem. As power ebbs and flows, both parties are willing to rig the game in their benefit to maintain power. Republicans just did it for 4 years and voters overwhelmingly rejected them. Will Democrats now do the same?

 

Leave a Reply