DIANA CIESLAK
Whether or not you support the Electoral College, the National Popular Vote reform plan is bad public policy.
Nevertheless, it is on the table in Michigan in the form of a senate bill (SB 598). Many legislators around the country have been initially taken in by NPV’s promise of improving representation in presidential elections and fairness in campaign strategy. Fortunately, many of them did their homework before it was too late. Michigan should do the same.
According to the Constitution, each state has as many electoral votes as the sum of its representatives and senators in Washington, D.C. Whether by “winner-take-all” or the “congressional district method,” the way voters in each state vote determines how that state casts its electoral votes.
The National Popular Vote plan would enter states into an interstate compact pledging to cast their electoral votes for the person with the most votes nationwide, not the most votes in their state.
At first glance, many interpret this to be a positive reform, amounting to more equality and representation. In reality, NPV would allow some states to dictate the way other states’ voted; it would create geographic and political imbalance.
Ultimately, it would reduce representation in Michigan and the country.
Consider this scenario: In 2004, Michigan voters favored John Kerry by 51 percent to 48 percent, so all 17 electoral votes went for Kerry. In the end, George W. Bush got the most votes in the Electoral College, winning the presidency. Still, Michigan’s electors voted the way its citizens voted; this is representation.
Under the National Popular Vote, those 17 electors would have been forced to ignore the way Michigan’s citizens voted and cast the state’s electoral votes for the national popular vote winner, George W. Bush. Rather than increasing representation for Michigan voters, NPV would eliminate it.
The National Popular Vote would also create geographic and political imbalance. Under the current system, candidates must build a broad national coalition to win a majority of electoral votes. More than half of the entire U.S. population lives in nine states. Under NPV, small and even medium-sized states would become irrelevant.
Coalition building also requires candidates to promote policies that appeal to people from a variety of political and ideological persuasions. Since numbers would be all that mattered under NPV, candidates would only need to seek out political allies. Combined with the lack of geographic incentive this could easily mean one corner or coast of the country deciding who will be commander-in-chief for all of it.
NPV bills have crept onto legislative agendas across the country. Yet more and more legislators are taking a closer look. As a result the most bipartisan aspect of National Popular Vote is its opposition.
In Washington, Rhode Island, Maine, and Wisconsin every Republican who originally supported the bill withdrew their support. In the Maine House of Representatives, all Republicans and nearly half of all Democrats voted against it. The bill passed both houses in Rhode Island’s 2008 session but was vetoed by the governor. In 2009, 10 Democrat representatives changed their votes from the previous year, and the bill failed in the House.
Whether the Electoral College is the best way to elect our president is a conversation worth having. But the National Popular Vote bill would hurt Michigan voters — and you don’t have to support the Electoral College to oppose it.
Diana Cieslak grew up in Michigan and now works as a policy analyst for the Save Our States Project ( http://www.SaveOurStates.com“>www.SaveOurStates.com) at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit public policy think tank in Olympia, Washington.
