Opponents of the National Popular Vote Have It Wrong

As a movement conservative, constitutionalist, and believer in the First Amendment, I do believe that Tara Ross and others are entitled to opinions related to the current effort surrounding the National Popular Vote, a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College. They are not, however, entitled to their own set of the facts. I’d like to set the record straight.

First the idea that National Popular Vote “abolishes”, “attacks”, “neuters” or “subverts” the Electoral College, the Constitution or “intent of the founders,” is simply not true.

National Popular Vote preserves the Electoral College and the intent of the Constitution, that is to say, that the states continue to have the right to determine how they award their electoral votes. This effort is an appropriate approach to reforming the way we elect our President under Article II of the Constitution.

It allows states to replace current winner-take-all rules, the current method of awarding all Electors to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in a given state. Forty-eight states currently use winner-take-all rules, relegating two-thirds of Americans irrelevant when electing their president because they live in a “fly-over” state where the Republican or Democrat candidate for President is comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind.

Our Founding Fathers did not oppose or support a national popular vote or any other method of electing our president, instead leaving it to the states to award electors in a manner that is in the best interest of the people that they serve. They certainly did not favor the current state-by-state, winner-take-all system we currently use to elect the President, nor would they bless a system that relegated 11 of the 13 original states to “fly-over” status during the 2008 Presidential campaign.

When more than two-thirds of the states are ignored under the current system, the Founders would expect states to execute the state-right to strengthen the voice of their citizens and their states when electing the President. National Popular Vote will do that.

Next is the flawed idea that National Popular Vote is trying to fly under the radar or a shroud of secrecy. National Popular Vote has been enacted in five states, passed by thirty legislative chambers, earned the support of more than 1900 legislators and generated thousands of media items. The idea that legislators are being hoodwinked is both offensive and demeaning to the leaders our Founders bestowed this decision.

Having done “Electoral College math” for a living, the idea that the current system results in candidates who appeal “to the broadest coalitions” is perhaps Ms. Ross’ most naive.

The current system encourages candidates to focus on the needs of one state, over another; to glorify special interests that can deliver a small group of swing voters in swing states; and, to make any promise necessary to win critical battleground states based on where they fit in their “path to the presidency”. Two-thirds of the country are mere spectators when selecting their president (because of winner-take-all rules) and that is fundamentally wrong.

The idea that National Popular Vote is flawed because it was born of a progressive (i.e., Dr. John Koza), is shortsighted and childish. A good idea is a good idea, no matter where it comes from as witnessed by school choice, the flat tax, or freeing the slaves from bondage – all ideas born out of progressives.

Then there is the false charge floating around the blogosphere and in some circles that the National Popular Vote will favor big-city liberals and the Democrats. Knowing a bit about political demography, I disagree. America is a center-right country and I am not afraid of our conservative ideas and believe this effort would in fact, energize otherwise ignored conservative voters in flyover states. It will encourage Republicans to compete for urban votes that are far more gettable for conservatives than rural, exurban, and Southern voters are for liberals.

New York conservatives apparently agree, as twenty of the twenty-four state Senators endorsed by the New York Conservative Party voted for the National Popular Vote bill.

The idea that a candidate will win with 15-percent of the vote is silly. The accusation that recounts will be likely and messy is distracting. Both could happen and are indeed more likely in the current system of winner-take-all rules.

I understand the need to sell books, experience twenty minutes of fame, and engage in philosophical parlor games so I get where Ms. Ross and the smattering of opponents are coming from. But, thoughtful citizens and legislators on the right, center and left need to continue to explore, think about and study these questions.

Do you think states should exercise their constitutional right to allocate electors in a way that ensures the persistent relevance of their citizens?

Do you believe the presidency should be guaranteed to the candidate who wins the most votes in all fifty states?

Do you believe that a vote in one state should be courted as much as a vote in another?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, I’d urge you to consider the National Popular Vote. National Popular Vote preserves the Electoral College and guarantees the presidency to the candidate who wins the most votes in all fifty states. Those are the just the facts.