Like it or not, the 2008 presidential race is underway.  Democrats held their first debate on April 26 in South Carolina, and Republicans soon joined in on the fun with their own debate last week. Many Americans can barely keep up with the early start to presidential campaign season. They may think it is too soon for candidates to start vying for their attention. But believe it or not, another group is already getting started with an effort aimed at the 2012 presidential election.

This latter campaign is a well-financed, nationally coordinated effort. It’s had an early success in Maryland, although it’s also had early failures in other states. The group is one to watch. Successes in as few as 11 more states would enable it to change the way in which Americans elect their President.

Indeed, legislation was recently introduced in Texas, at the prodding of this campaign. If passed, a bill such as HB 3566 would require Texas’s 34 electoral votes to be allocated to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the state popular vote. Imagine the entire slate of Texas electors voting for Hillary Clinton, even if Texans themselves vote overwhelmingly against her. This scenario could become a reality if legislation such as HB 3566 is adopted by a critical mass of states (states holding at least 270 total electoral votes).

Sounds impossible? Maybe in the short term. But the National Popular Vote campaign is not trying to succeed in the short term. It has a longer time horizon in mind, and it is tackling states one at a time in its efforts to succeed. It hopes to accomplish its goal by 2012.

The campaign has had its biggest success in Maryland, where the NPV proposal has already been enacted into law. The Illinois House recently approved the plan, and the state’s Senate will consider the legislation later this month. The proposal came close to approval in two states, California and Hawaii, until gubernatorial vetoes defeated the plan.

Maybe some voters won’t care. The Electoral College is an often misunderstood institution, and many may default upon the assumption that any plan to bypass the Electoral College is a good thing.  But it is always dangerous to eliminate or change constitutional provisions without first seeking to understand why those provisions were put in place in the first place. At a minimum, legislators and voters should strive to educate themselves on the history and justifications for the Electoral College before they casually default upon support for such a radical change to our political system.

Voters have many misperceptions about the Electoral College.  Conventional wisdom erroneously holds that “only” swing states matter in modern-day American presidential elections. Such a perspective makes the mistake of focusing too exclusively on only one or a handful of election years. Once states’ full histories of voting are studied, it becomes apparent that the identity of “swing” and “safe” states changes all the time. In reality, the Electoral College creates a healthy political dynamic that requires political parties to reach out to voters nationwide.

Similarly, many voters operate under the false assumption that the Electoral College is an inherently unfair and undemocratic process. But the country does hold democratic presidential elections: Fifty-one purely democratic presidential elections are held each year, one in each state and one in the District of Columbia. Democratic principles are an important aspect of the Electoral College, but they are combined with the principles of republicanism and federalism. These latter principles prevent our country from degenerating into a system where 51 percent of voters can tyrannize over 49 percent of voters at the drop of a hat. Yet most voters do not know how or why republican and federalist principles were included in the U.S. Constitution. Why would they? By and large, this aspect of constitutional history is not taught in American schools.

Finally, many voters are likely to note that the President “should be the person whom most Americans support.” But human nature makes such an outcome impossible. Fifty-one percent of Americans will never agree on the identity of the “best” American President.  Left to their own devices, voters would instead fracture their votes across half a dozen or more candidates. Legislation such as HB 3566 exacerbates the problem, because it does not even require a run-off. A candidate winning the nationwide tally with a plurality of 30 percent of the vote could win the White House. Such a candidate does not represent “most” Americans. The Electoral College, at least, makes voters come together and agree on a good compromise candidate who will satisfy most Americans as represented by their states.

In the opinion of this author, the NPV effort does not pose an imminent danger to the Electoral College. It does, however, have prospects of long-term success if voters fail to be diligent in educating themselves about their political system. Americans must not let their Constitution be undermined through sheer apathy and ignorance.

Comments (6)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment