Commentary
How to keep the Electoral College while letting the people pick our president
By Laura Brod
Laura Brod is a spokesperson for National Popular Vote, a member of the University of Minnesota Board of Regents and a former Republican state legislator.
The 2012 elections have reenergized the national debate over the Electoral College, and that's a good thing.
But that debate is needlessly veering off in two radically opposite directions.
On one side are the status quo defenders, who believe that protecting a system of electing the president that leaves four out of five Americans behind in 40 "spectator" states is a good idea because it's what we know.
On the other side are folks who believe fixing our broken system requires us to eliminate the Electoral College that the Founders carefully put in place.
The choice is not between the devil we know and the devil we don't. There is a sensible middle ground.
We can fix the system, keep the Electoral College and assure that every voter will be equally important come 2016. That solution is called National Popular Vote. It's an artful, state-based solution to the significant problem with our system.
Now, three critical points.
First, it is important to understand that the Electoral College itself is not the problem.
The problem is state-based, winner-take-all laws that award all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state. It is these laws, and not the Electoral College itself, that must be changed.
Winner-take-all rules, in place in 48 of 50 states, drive presidential campaigns directly to 10 battleground "swing" states where virtually all the candidates' time, money and attention are concentrated.
That's why voters in the battleground states of Michigan and Ohio were inundated with campaign messaging about auto bailouts; why candidates were quick to address federal workforce issues in Virginia, and why voters in Colorado heard so much about defense and the military.
Meanwhile, until polls here in Minnesota began to tighten, both campaigns ignored us. The pattern repeats itself across the country. Republicans feel free to bypass reliably "red" states like North Dakota and Kansas, and Democrats don't bother campaigning in reliably "blue" states such as New York and California. As a result, presidential candidates fail to address the issues of concern to four out of five Americans.
Second, under the current system, Americans face the very real possibility of a president who wins the national popular vote but fails to capture the majority of electoral votes.
It didn't happen in 2012, but it has occurred four times over the past 56 presidential elections, including George W. Bush's victory over Al Gore in 2000. That number almost became five in 2004, when a 60,000-vote switch in Ohio would have awarded that state's electoral votes, and the presidency, to John Kerry even though Bush won a 3-million-vote popular victory. This is something many citizens — on both sides of the aisle — simply believe is wrong.
Third, the National Popular Vote bill makes every vote equally important and preserves the Electoral College.
The National Popular Vote bill is a compact by which state legislatures use their power under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution to award their states' electoral votes as they see fit.
Under the compact, states with electoral votes totaling 270 or more agree to award all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. The current system of winner-take-all state laws gets fixed. The Electoral College remains in place. And everyone's vote becomes equally important, regardless of where he or she lives.
The good news is, we are almost halfway there. Thus far, eight states plus the District of Columbia (Hawaii, Washington, California, Illinois, Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey), with 132 combined electoral votes, have passed National Popular Vote.
The compact will take effect when states with 270 or more total electoral votes pass the measure. Since state and national polls consistently show 75 percent of Americans support the change, prospects appear bright for 2016.
When that happens, smart strategy will press presidential candidates to campaign for every single vote across all 50 states. Because a vote in Minnesota or Kansas will carry as much weight as a vote in Florida or Ohio. No more "battleground" states or "flyover-ATM" states where candidates rush in to raise money and then disappear.
Every voter in every state will be equally important.
Comments (7)
Your solution sounds more complicated than it has to be. Why not just award electoral votes by congressional district, and then the two votes of each state representing the senatorial seats by the popular vote of that state. For example, if candidate A carries 20 congressional districts in New York, A would get 20 electroal votes; B would get 29, and whoever garnered the most votes state wide would get the additional 2.
I prefer proportional award of electoral votes to this solution.
My "elected" officials may not represent me at all, which leaves my vote meaningless.
I'm represented in the electoral college if the candidate for whom I voted gets the same proportion of electoral votes in my state as s/he did actual votes.
An analysis of the whole number proportional plan and congressional district systems of awarding electoral votes, evaluated the systems "on the basis of whether they promote majority rule, make elections more nationally competitive, reduce incentives for partisan machinations, and make all votes count equally. . . .
Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, the congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.
For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ."
FairVote
A survey of Minnesota voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 84% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 68% among others.
By age, support was 74% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 83% among women and 67% among men.
NationalPopularVote
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
Now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes to win in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates.
Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in the country.
The conclusion given in story and many comments is false and misleading:
"As a result, presidential candidates fail to address the issues of concern to four out of five Americans."
The current system does not cause any candidate to ignore 4 of 5. It is more like 1 of 10 and has nothing to do with the electoral college.
Also I do not really see how this will change the campaigning much. It seems to under-estimate the ability of candidates to use research to know where to focus their resources.
The 1 of 10 is the 1% who can afford to give a lot of money to the campaigns. It we really want to get better representation from our government for more of the people we need to remove the large amount of money from campaigns.
I agree that your system of awarding the electoral college vote to the popular vote winner is best. Gerrymandering renders congressional district awarding problematic and doesn't compensate for the fact the electoral college structure cannot provide equality for every vote cast. The National Popular Vote approach is far more feasibe than amending the Constitution.
What can the people do to help get this done by the next election?
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
