The National Popular Vote

This is a great article by Jamie Raskin, who is a Maryland state senator and a professor of constitutional law at American University's Washington College of Law.  He discusses changes that would take all Electoral College votes in every state, and give them to the winner of the popular vote in the presidential election.  Here are some highlights from the article:

 The presidential campaign planes fly over all of us in red and blue America in search of “swing votersâ€? in the dwindling set of “swing states.â€? Fully 99 percent of presidential campaign funding in the last two cycles went to move voters in a mere 16 states, and two-thirds of the money was poured into five states. The majority of Americans have become long-distance spectators to the exciting action in the battleground states where issues are debated and campaign ads air. We watch as the candidates, the campaign staff and the media bear down on Florida, Ohio, New Mexico and a handful of others states blessed with closely divided electorates. Voter turn-out in the general election sometimes approaches 70 percent in the swing states but hovers in the mid-50s in demoralized spectator states, driving our national turn-out rates down to among the lowest on earth.

Public opinion polls have long shown that upwards of 65 percent of Americans favor a direct national popular vote for president in which all of our votes count equally. The puzzle has been how to reconcile a national popular election with the antique mechanics of the Electoral College, which Thomas Jefferson called “the most dangerous blot on our Constitution.â€? 

The National Popular Vote plan rests on the powers that states have to create interstate compacts and to appoint electors. Article II, Section I provides: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…â€? This power has been deployed by legislatures in different ways. When the nation began, the legislatures mostly named Electors directly and they operated as a deliberative body and voted their consciences. In 1800, for example, Maryland saw seven of its electors vote for Adams and four for Jefferson. When states began in the last century to award their electors in winner-take-all fashion based on a statewide popular vote, smaller states complained that this newfangled “unitâ€? bloc voting diluted the power of small states (and they were right). They sued. In the aptly named Delaware v. New York  in 1966, the Supreme Court rejected this challenge and emphasized that the states’ power to award electors may be exercised in any manner they see fit. The power is “plenary.â€?

I like this plan for a couple of reasons.  First, it brings back the idea of "one person, one vote".   Currently, if you live in a predominately red or blue state your vote goes nowhere if you are on the losing side.   I think this helps lead to low voter turnout. 

Also, this forces candidate to campaign to the entire nation--not just a few "swing states" as the article points out.  A voter in Vermont (3 electoral votes) is just as important as a voter in California (55 electoral votes).  This is the American way.  I think we need to give this National Popular Vote plan more attention.

Chris