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.

NPV has made North Carolina one of its targets for 2010. Yet North Carolina is a great example of the weakness of one of NPV’s key arguments.

NPV points out that presidential candidates spend most of their time and resources in “battleground states.” That’s true. But what is often ignored is that states are not permanently “safe” or “swing.”

A brochure by FairVote of North Carolina quotes Meredith College professor Clyde Frazier.

“The last time presidential candidates actively campaigned in North Carolina was 1992. Like most  Americans we have become mere spectators, with no chance of influencing the outcome of the election.”

This was in June of 2007. One year later, North Carolina was a hotly contested swing state.

Even before the switch took place, the John Locke Foundation’s Daren Bakst said this about NPV:

“If such a plan were passed, North Carolina will be letting out-of-state citizens decide the candidate that the state will support in Presidential elections. The legislature will be saying that the voices of North Carolinians don’t matter.”

NPV would force states to ignore the will of their own citizens. In 2004 California would have cast 55 electoral votes for George W. Bush. In 2008, Texas would have cast its 34 electoral votes for Sen. Obama. The election outcomes would not have changed; would the votes of the 54% of Californians who voted for Sen. Kerry have counted more?