“Wisconsin would lose big time!” under National Popular Vote
Wisconsin has made it onto NPV‚Äôs list of targeted states. Dave Zweifel‚Äôs Madison.com article, ‚ÄúUsing popular vote to elect president is the way to go,‚ÄĚ parrots one of the National Popular Vote organization‚Äôs most often-used (and faulty) arguments: that because the Electoral College motivates candidates to campaign in some states (‚Äúswing states‚ÄĚ) more than others (‚Äúsafe states‚ÄĚ) it should be eliminated as unfair and outdated.
Thankfully, the good people of Wisconsin take Zweifel to task in the comments section. I‚Äôll let them speak for themselves:
- “Why should my vote in Wisconsin have anything to do with New York, Texas, California or other more heavily populated states?‚ÄĚ
- ‚ÄúMany of the arguments for popular vote make reference to the uncompetitiveness of certain states. Many states that used to be solidly Democrat are now Republican and vice versa. Where they stand today is not a reason to change the system.‚ÄĚ
- ‚ÄúContrary to popular belief, we are not a democratic nation; we are however a republic made up of 50 democratic states ‚Ä¶ all of which deserve their share of the pie.‚ÄĚ
- ‚ÄúWisconsin would lose big time! Normally voting pretty independently, we see both Democrats and Republicans campaigning here to sway our vote, that would never happen with a popular vote. Some buildings in Manhattan have more population than Wisconsin cities like Wausau or Chippewa Falls.‚ÄĚ
- ‚ÄúEach party would only seek to turn out as many votes as possible in ‚Äėtheir‚Äô regions of the country ‚Ä¶ In this scenario, a handful of states and heavily populated cities win while the remaining areas suffer.‚ÄĚ
- ‚ÄúThe only difference this would make is that instead of certain battleground states getting all the attention, the high population states would.‚ÄĚ
The recurring theme in these comments is how the Electoral College actually represents the will of the people better than a national popular vote would. Zweifel calls the Electoral College a ‚Äúconvoluted archaic system,‚ÄĚ and claims that NPV would ‚Äúensure that the people ‚Ä¶ determine who is president.‚ÄĚ The folks above seem to think the people do. And they‚Äôre right.
Battleground states are called battleground states because they‚Äôre evenly divided and represent more diverse viewpoints than safe states. Washington is usually safely blue; Texas is usually safely red. Ohio, on the other hand, tends to be purple until just before Election Day. To win a ‚Äúswing state,‚ÄĚ a candidate has to appeal to more than just his buddies. He has to win over a diverse, state-by-state majority.