“Wisconsin would lose big time!” under National Popular Vote
Wisconsin has made it onto NPVâs list of targeted states. Dave Zweifelâs Madison.com article, âUsing popular vote to elect president is the way to go,â parrots one of the National Popular Vote organizationâs most often-used (and faulty) arguments: that because the Electoral College motivates candidates to campaign in some states (âswing statesâ) more than others (âsafe statesâ) it should be eliminated as unfair and outdated.
Thankfully, the good people of Wisconsin take Zweifel to task in the comments section. Iâll 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?â
- âMany 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.â
- âContrary to popular belief, we are not a democratic nation; we are however a republic made up of 50 democratic states âŚ all of which deserve their share of the pie.â
- âWisconsin 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.â
- âEach party would only seek to turn out as many votes as possible in âtheirâ regions of the country âŚ In this scenario, a handful of states and heavily populated cities win while the remaining areas suffer.â
- âThe only difference this would make is that instead of certain battleground states getting all the attention, the high population states would.â
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 âconvoluted archaic system,â and claims that NPV would âensure that the people âŚ determine who is president.â The folks above seem to think the people do. And theyâre right.
Battleground states are called battleground states because theyâre 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 âswing state,â a candidate has to appeal to more than just his buddies. He has to win over a diverse, state-by-state majority.