According to National Popular Vote, it don’t mean a thing if you ain’t got that swing. Voters outside of “swing states,” NPV’s materials claim, are “spectators to the presidential election” and are “effectively disenfranchised.”

A closer look reveals that NPV’s claims come from a superficial understanding of political campaigns that does not survive under the scrutiny of common sense. The suggestion that certain votes or voters matter more than others is not unique to the Electoral College. In fact, not all voters are equal even in single-member districts.

A look at some of the actual data is appropriate. Listed below are the states where the margin between the top two candidates was less than five percent in the last dozen presidential elections. The color of the state name indicates the winner of that state (red for Republicans, blue for Democrats); bold indicates the state was not within 5% in the previous election. (I am using close election results to define “swing states.” There are other plausible definitions.)

2008: Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio

2004: Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin

2000: Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin

1996: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia

1992: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin

1988: California, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

1984: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island

1980: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin

1976: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin

1972: none (the closes state was Minnesota, which Nixon won by 5.51%)

1968: Alaska, California, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin

1964: Arizona, Florida, Idaho

First, these groups of the closest states in presidential elections are far from static. Of the above elections, only 1996 is a subset of states from the preceding election. With Bill Clinton running for reelection, Ross Perot running again, and Bob Dole representing no significant departure from George H.W. Bush, 1996 turned out to be something like a repeat of 1992. The “swing states” group changes over time–sometimes slowly and other times dramatically–and typically becomes clear only in the closing months or even weeks of a campaign. Moreover, it changes as political parties work to expand their appeal and broaden their coalitions.

Second, contrary to a recent SOS blog commenter, the number of swing states is not in obvious decline. While this last election featured a smaller number of battleground states than usual, one data point is not a trend. (And even if there were a trend, the Electoral College has remained the same, so it could not be the cause.) Over the period of time used above, the average number of close states was between 10 and 11.

But what about the allegation that no matter how many or which states are swing states, the system is unfair? After all, some voters receive more attention from candidates and campaigns. And do votes in “safe states” even matter?

In fact, the Electoral College simply makes more obvious the realities of political campaigns and democratic processes. Most campaigns are fought out in single-member districts, where whoever gets the most votes wins. That’s what National Popular Vote would turn presidential elections into, making the nation one of the biggest and most complex single-member districts in the world. Yet in political campaigns in single-member districts, candidates focus on certain voters and ignore others. Campaigns often spend a great deal of money on data and consultants to slice and dice up the potential electorate. They do whatever they can to identify those voters most likely to change their vote in favor of their candidate. And they ignore everyone else as much as possible. Any city council or state legislative candidate who has sat down with a political consultant has had this conversation. This is the reality of politics, a reality ignored by NPV. They fancifully suggest that under their plan, candidates would campaign for every single vote from every single voter. In fact, NPV would only shift somewhat which voters receive the attention of presidential campaigns.

Do votes in safe states matter? In truth, the vote that matters is the one that puts a candidate beyond their opponent. Every vote after that might be said not to matter. The same might be said of all the votes for a losing candidate. Statistically speaking, voting is irrational. It isn’t something we do because we really expect any of the races on our ballot to come down to our single vote determining which candidate takes office, though the possibility (usually more remote than winning the lottery) is there. Voters understand this, even if subconsciously. Millions of “safe state” voters turnout to vote for president every four years. Even in elections destined to be blowouts (i.e. 1964 and 1972), millions of Americans turned out to vote for the looser.

The United States is a vast geographical territory with a large and remarkably diverse population. Each of those facts creates significant challenges to maintaining a stable political system, the kind of system that can maintain justice and allow for freedom and prosperity. The Electoral College system helps provide stability in our national elections through a democratic process filtered through the states. It creates incentives to building national coalitions and decentralizes election administration.

National Popular Vote fails to recognize the benefits of our current Electoral College system. Worse, it misunderstands the effects its own plan would have on the reality of political campaigns and voting.

Who won the election of 1876? The race was so close that South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana each provided two dueling slates of electoral votes.

A special congressional commission sorted things out in favor of Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, though New York Governor and Democratic nominee Samuel Tilden probably received more popular votes.

That election began a series of close contests that some claim were failures of the Electoral College, but others recognize as its greatest successes.

Republican James A. Garfield won the election of 1880, but it was another squeaker—probably the closest U.S. presidential election in history, with a national vote margin of just 9,070 votes and 6 states decided by two percent or less.

Democrats came back in 1884 with another New Yorker, Grover Cleveland, and won the presidency for the first time after the Civil War.

Slavery and Jim Crow were not only moral blights on America; they also contributed to the political regionalism than nearly rent the nation apart.

After the Civil War, it was the Electoral College that forced Democrats to reach out to the North just as Republicans reached out in the South.

The presidential election process made building a national coalition more important than pumping up regional popularity.

Grover Cleveland and the Democrats learned this lesson the hard way in 1888 when Cleveland lost his reelection campaign even as he won the most national votes.

Tremendously popular in the deep South, Cleveland won 82 percent of the vote in South Carolina and over 70 percent in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia, but lost his home state of New York.

Intense regional support would have made Cleveland the winner under a national popular vote system; instead, the Electoral College forced Cleveland and the Democrats back to the drawing board.

In 1892, Cleveland returned with greater national support and won back the presidency, becoming the only person to serve non-consecutive terms in that office.

Today, self-styled reformers who seek to undo the Electoral College must answer: would America, or even the Democratic Party, have been better off if Grover Cleveland had won the presidency in 1888?

The Electoral College prevents regional candidates from becoming president; it makes candidates and political parties reach farther and include more diverse groups of people in their coalitions.

In some countries, close elections result in political instability, civil unrest, even total collapse.

The U.S. presidency is probably the greatest electoral prize in the world, yet even under intense pressure with the narrowest of margins the Electoral College has produced clear winners capable of governing these United States.

So, what did Grover Cleveland learn?

• Because of the Electoral College, Cleveland’s intense regional popularity–even when it gave him a raw total majority–was not enough to win the presidency.
• Successful presidential campaigns must assemble broad, national coalitions.

It is the genius of the Electoral College that Cleveland did not win in 1888. The Electoral College works as a check against regionalism and radicalism.

American politics are more inclusive, moderate, stable, and nationally unified because of the Electoral College.

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Charlottesville, VA’s Rob Schilling on The Schilling Show. We covered topics like the difference between “democracy” and a “democratic republic”, why the Electoral College is a key component in preserving American liberty, and how NPV threatens to undo its benefits. You can listen here.

As Colorado prepares to debate the Koza scheme, I wrote the following editorial.  It appeared in the April 20th edition of the Denver Daily News and is available on the Independence Institute Web site.

If National Popular Vote wins, we lose

By Amy Oliver

This week the Colorado Senate will debate the relevance of our state in the next presidential election and the legitimacy of our nation as it considers HB 1299.

If passed, our state will join a compact of other states. All nine electoral votes will go the leader of the national popular vote, regardless of the will of Colorado voters. This end run around the Constitution is known as National Popular Vote or Koza scheme, named after multi-millionaire John Koza who concocted the plan to destroy the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote without a constitutional amendment.

Ever since the 2000 election when Al Gore narrowly won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to George W. Bush, some Democrats have been on a mission to destroy the Electoral College. It’s important to remember that had Gore been able to win even a single southern or border state–such as his “home” state of Tennessee or Bill Clinton’s home state of Arkansas, he would have been President. George W. Bush won the popular vote in 30 states, therefore giving him the necessary number of electoral votes to win the presidency. Middle America was able to avoid the tyranny of the East and West Coasts.

Inherent in this movement to rid the country of the Electoral College is a misguided notion that the United States is a democracy rather than a republic. Our Founding Fathers recognized the danger of a democracy where 51 percent rules 49, and thus created a republic where the rights of individuals are protected from the whims of the majority. The Electoral College is vital to maintaining our republic. It forces a presidential candidate to garner support that is both broad and deep, not concentrated on the coasts or urban areas.

Previous attempts to destroy the Electoral College in Colorado have been unsuccessful.

In 2004, a handful of Democrats bankrolled by a Brazilian millionaire asked Coloradans to change how the state awards its nine electoral votes. In a vote that wasn’t even close, nearly 66 percent of voters said, “NO!” and rejected proposed Amendment 36.

In 2007, Senator Ken Gordon introduced legislation that would force Colorado to be part of the Koza scheme. It passed the Senate but died in the House.

This year, State Representative Andy Kerr introduced the Koza scheme in the House where it passed on a 34-29 vote. It passed the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee along a party line vote and now awaits Second Reading in the full Senate.

Supporters of the Koza scheme are undeterred by arguments that the United States is a republic rather than a democracy and that Colorado will be little more than “fly-over” area during the next election. Perhaps supporters should consider other arguments.

For instance, what about a regional presidential candidate? A candidate could enjoy overwhelming support along the Eastern Seaboard and the Northeast and not even be on the ballot in Colorado. If he is the winner of the national popular vote, Colorado’s electoral votes would go to a candidate on whom Coloradans had no say.

Another problem is that no national standards exist about who can vote. In Vermont, a state considering the Koza scheme, a convicted felon serving time in prison can vote. In Colorado only those convicted felons who have completed their parole may vote. As a result, Colorado may have to award its electoral votes to the candidate that felons serving time in Vermont prisons support but that didn’t win the support of Colorado voters.

Also, political instability would be the rule rather than the exception especially in close elections as states demand recounts if their candidate of choice does not win the national popular vote. In Senate Committee testimony, University Law Professor Robert Hardaway concluded that had the Koza scheme been in place during the 1960 election between Democrat John Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon, the country would have endured years of lawsuits with no declared presidential winner until the 1964 election. In this case, the Speaker of the House would serve as an interim president.

After the 1960 election, some Republicans called for the abolition of the Electoral College. It was the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) who warned in 1979 that without the Electoral College,

“the drama, the dignity, and decisiveness and finality of the American political system is drained away in an endless sequence of contests, disputed outcomes, and more contests to resolve outcomes already disrupted….That is how legitimacy is lost.”

HB 1299 is not only bad for Colorado but also for our nation.  Colorado legislators should ask themselves if it is worth it.  After all history proves that power is cyclical.

Amy Oliver is the Director of Operations for the Independence Institute and can be reached at amy@i2i.org.

A common public view of the Electoral College seems to be, “I don’t understand it so it must be wrong.” Witness the following from a letter to Seattle’s only remaining news daily.

… it is time to come into the 21st century. There is no place in today’s society for 200-year-old practices.

Here is part of my response.

Perhaps Mr. Hopper would also like to ditch freedom of speech and the press? After all, the First Amendment is just a tad younger than the rest of the Constitution. What about “created equal” and “inalienable rights”—those sentiments, from the Declaration of Independence, are even older.

The test of such institutions is time, a test the Electoral College has passed. By forcing candidates to build broad, national coalitions and to focus on the most evenly divided states, the Electoral College is a source of both unity and moderation.