National Popular Vote Interstate Project

Shirley, I'm not the only one to whom it has occurred that this could once again be an election in which the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the electoral college. And I can see about an equal chance for each candidate to be in either position.

Ok, so we all know that the electoral college is a ridiculous, out-dated institution (as if it were ever in-dated). But our fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers knew that too, and it is never going to be changed. That's another thing that everybody knows.

I am surprised by the lack of coverage of the National Popular Vote Interstate Project, at least as I see coverage from my vantage point in Brasil. I apologize if everyone else is way ahead of me on this. In essence, this project involves a legislative measure which has been, and is being, introduced in state legislatures around the country. The measure is a compact among the states which says that when the measure has been enacted and signed into law in enough states (when enough states have joined the compact) to represent a majority in the electoral college, then the participating states will cast their electoral votes for the popular vote winner in the country overall, irrespective of who won the popular vote in their state. Until enough states to represent a majority in the electoral college have joined the compact, participating states would continue to allocate their electoral votes as they do currently.

The measure has already been passed in nine states which represent 132 electoral votes, 49% of the 270 needed to elect a president.  It has been introduced in several other states, and no doubt will continue to be introduced session after session for as long as it takes.

Of course there are arguments for and against from both a policy and a constitutional perspective, which arguments you can read for yourself, but I think the measure has the best on all counts. All of the policy arguments against it eventually run up against the fact that all the measure does is promote an equality of value among voters. It is hard to oppose that forever, just as equal rights for all seems pretty basic in other policy areas. To be fair, there are some valid arguments against it, but I don't think they should prevail.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of this bill, after the obvious one that it would prevent the election of a president who didn't win the popular vote, is that is would bring all fifty states back into the presidential campaign process. I suppose some people might be happy to live in a state which is not "in play," thereby escaping the barrage of media ads and telephone calls etc. Just as I feel fortunate to be out of reach of U.S. television here in Brasil. But if you're a blue voter in a red state, or vice versa, it must be pretty discouraging to go to the polls knowing your vote for president is worthless.

It is interesting to me that I first became aware of this measure a few months ago when I read a story about a false charge on an important DC blog, "The Hill," that "Al Gore Calls For an End to Electoral College." Actually, he did nothing of the sort; he said in an interview that he supports this measure which does not change the electoral college at all. Apparently the media's tendency to misreport Gore's statements didn't end with the bogus quote about creating the internet.

Although the measure itself is clearly non-partisan, has no clear long-term benefit to either party, and is backed by members of both parties, it is curious to me that the principle opposition seems to be coming from Republicans. Their current party platform includes a plank opposing this measure. Republican governors in California and Hawaii vetoed the measure, only to have it passed again by the legislatues and subsequently signed by their Democratic successors.

There really is no reason this should be a partisan issue.