The Electoral College was one of the least controversial provisions of the original Constitution. The state-by-state way we elect the President of the United States gives each state a number of Electoral Votes equal to the sum of their U.S. Representatives and Senators (and Washington, D.C., gets three). Nearly all states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes in their state (Nebraska and Maine apportion some by congressional district). To win, a candidate must collect the majority of electoral votes (270 of 538), or else the election goes to the House of Representatives (which also has a majority requirement). The Electoral College makes presidential campaigns and elections primarily a state responsibility, part of the American constitutional system called federalism.

Electoral College Map

Federalism, and the Electoral College in particular, reflect the belief that stable institutions are essential for maintaining a political regime and preserving a free society. They are products of the understanding that freedom is never the result of simple legal or even constitutional commands. Freedom requires institutions that channel potentially dangerous political passions into constructive compromise and coalition building. The Electoral College system does this; the proposed “National Popular Vote” interstate compact does not.

National Popular Vote is a San Fransisco-based organization founded and funded by Dr. John Koza. It is also the name of Dr. Koza’s proposal to use state legislation to create an agreement among states that would change how the Electoral College works. In short, states would agree to ignore the result within their state and instead give all of their electoral votes to the candidate winning the most votes nationwide. There is no majority requirement or provision for a runoff. The agreement takes effect when passed by enough states to control an electoral vote majority, and therefore to control the presidential election.

While Dr. Koza’s proposal has been stymied now for over a year, it was previously enacted in five states: Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington. Within the last month, it has made some progress in Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York. It is now dead for the year in Delaware, but it remains possible that either or both of the other two states could enact it.

National Popular Vote cleverly takes advantage of the Constitution’s grant of authority to state legislatures to determine how to allocate their electoral votes. For over a century, Electoral College opponents focused on amending the Constitution. National Popular Vote is a clever strategy and, at least on its surface, elegantly simple.

Yet the benefits of the current Electoral College system have nothing to do with surface appeal. In fact, the debate over National Popular Vote exposes just how little most Americans (and many law professors and even politicians) understand the incentives created by the Electoral College that moderate and strengthen our political system.

The Electoral College forces presidential campaign strategists and national political parties to construct broad coalitions across much of the nation. The phenomena of “swing states” makes this clear: the candidates and their parties are currently so evenly matched that recent elections have worked their way down to a small number of states. Thankfully, and in part because of the workings of the Electoral College, neither the safe states nor the swing states represent anything like particular geographic regions or political interests. The states that make up each group (“safe” and “swing”) have been continually shifting as the political parties strive to achieve the constitutional majority defined by the Electoral College.

The greatest historical example of the importance of the Electoral College is the election of 1888. National Popular Vote claims that Grover Cleveland’s loss was a great injustice, yet it was a turning point–for the better–in American politics. Read more in our earlier post: What Grover Learned at (the) Electoral College.

Tonight Save Our States is hosting a Citizens’ Briefing to explain the importance of the Electoral College and the threat of the National Popular Vote plan.

A lot of people don’t like the Electoral College. Even more people don’t understand it. There are plenty of arguments for the institution’s irreplaceable contribution to American liberty and prosperity—like how it protects representation and minority rights, preserves national stability, gives every voter a say in presidential elections, etc.

But you don’t have to be a fan of the Electoral College to recognize the National Popular Vote plan for what it is—bad public policy. Even if the United States did choose to ‘reform’ the way we elect our president, the NPV plan’s striking resemblance to Swiss cheese should be enough to deter legislators from going this route.

Right now NPV legislation is poised to pass in Massachusetts, New York, and Delaware.

Join us this evening from 7:00-7:30 p.m. EST for a briefing on the National Popular Vote and what citizens in NY, Mass, and DE can do about it.

What: Urgent Citizen Briefing: The Electoral College under attack in NY, MASS, & DE

When: 7:00-7:30 p.m. EST, TODAY

Where: Simply click here to enter the Dimdim virtual meeting.

Last week, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed National Popular Vote (NPV) legislation, part of the attempt to unravel the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. Yesterday, the New York State Senate passed the same bill. In each state, the measure moves to the other legislative chamber for consideration.

So far this year NPV has failed to be enacted in any state. The legislation seeks to create an interstate compact–an agreement among the states–that would take effect if passed by states representing a majority of votes in the Electoral College (270 out of 538). It would direct states to ignore the will of their own voters and instead cast all of the states electoral votes for the presidential candidate who gets the most votes nationwide. This would leave the Electoral College process in place, but manipulate it to ‘rubber stamp’ the raw national vote winner.

NPV’s last success came over a year ago when Washington became the fifth state to enact NPV legislation. However, some constitutional scholars are concerned that NPV might argue that governor’s vetoes do not matter, because the Constitution gives state legislatures power over state electoral votes. Governors in California, Rhode Island, and Vermont have vetoed the bill. Including those states, if NPV passes in Massachusetts and New York it would have gained 166 electoral votes worth of states.

I have talked with several legislative staff in both New York and Massachusetts this year, and NPV”s success in those states is perhaps not surprising. In both states, legislative staff (who reflect their bosses) were disinterested, seemingly unwilling or perhaps unable to understand the scope and importance of the question: how should we elect the President of the United States. State politics is less thoughtful, more a party- and lobbyist-driven machine. The San Francisco-based National Popular Vote organization spends vast sums on lobbying. The most recent records from New York show that NPV spent $67,500 on paid lobbyists there during 2009.

Last year, in addition to our educational activities in Washington State, Save Our States visited Nevada and was assisted allies in Oregon and Colorado as well. While NPV was signed into law in Washington, it stalled in the other three states as legislators began asking questions and constituents made their voices heard.

So tomorrow I am on the red-eye flight to the Northeast (I hear it’s lovely there this time of year), where I will visit a string of state capitals to educate policymakers and the public about the importance of preserving Federalism and the Electoral College.

I’ll be updating SaveOurStates as I go, though we aren’t releasing many details of the trip in advance. My first two stops are Augusta, Maine, and Montpelier, Vermont. For more regular updates, follow Save Our States on Twitter.

The balance of power between state and national governments was one of the most contentious issues for the American Founders.

The states were important historically, but also as a way to keep government close to the people and to divide government power into as many hands as practical in order to preserve liberty.

At the Constitutional Convention small states wanted every state to have an equal voice in the national government. Large states desired just the opposite—representation based on population would give them more power.

It was a compromise that created the U.S. Congress, where states are represented equally in the Senate but according to population in the House. That compromise not only broke the deadlock that threatened to derail the Constitution—it became the foundation for the unique American system of Federalism.

The national government was set up to provide national defense, manage foreign trade, and referee disputes between the states—in short, to provide the states with safety and commerce similar to the way the British Empire did for the 13 original colonies. The states were left to manage their internal affairs and to compete with one another; thus the states are sometimes referred to as our “fifty laboratories of democracy.”

Federalism fosters diversity by allowing groups of people in different states to manage their affairs differently, to innovate or remain the same, to address local needs. And by keeping government local, dividing it up, and making it compete, Federalism protects freedom.

The American system of states is not just unique—it has been uniquely successful. Federalism is an American invention worth preserving.

The Massachusetts bill to “reform” (i.e. effectively abolish) the Electoral College and replace it with a national popular vote passed both chambers in the last session but failed to make it to the governor’s office.

Five states have passed the legislation. Yet a growing number of legislators are having a change of heart, including in Massachusetts.

In 2008, Massachusetts State Rep. Will Brownsberger co-sponsored the National Popular Vote bill. Yet on further reflection he voted against his own bill. It still passed by a landslide, but Brownsberger explained why NPV would be bad for Massachusetts and risky for the nation.