Vermont is one gubernatorial signature away from joining an effort to ditch the Electoral College. The Vermont legislature gave final approval to the National Popular Vote plan last week. (More details regarding the mechanics of the legislation can be found here.)

As a legislator, Governor Shumlin once sponsored the bill, so he is expected to sign it now. His signature will make Vermont the seventh state to join NPV’s compact.

The full article can be found at National Review Online.

Few states stand to lose more under National Popular Vote than Vermont. As both a low population and low population density state, Vermont is the classic “small” state. The Electoral College gives Vermont a political boost.

On the road in the Green Mountain State

The National Popular Vote plan, on the other hand, would pull the political rug out from under Vermont.

Consider this: half the nation’s population lives in the 40 largest urban areas. The smallest city on the list–Jacksonville, Florida–has 1.3 million people. Vermont has about 620,000 people–only Wyoming is smaller.

Under NPV, which would leave the Electoral College structure in place but manipulate it to create a direct popular vote for president, a candidate would win Vermont’s electoral votes by winning the most votes nationwide. Period. Vermonters’ votes would have nothing to do with Vermont’s electoral votes. In fact, a candidate wouldn’t even need to be on the ballot in Vermont in order to “win” its electoral votes under NPV.

Vermont's State House

And what about candidates’ attention? NPV bemoans the fact that in any given election, the campaigns focus on “swing states.” Of course, those states only swing because of their political moderation. But what would campaigns do under an NPV system? How would a Karl Rove or David Plouffe design their campaign plans if states didn’t matter?

NPV implies that campaigns will suddenly treat every voter exactly the same. Their slogan is “every voter equal.” It’s a classic “missing the forest for the trees” argument: NPV makes every voter mathematically equal, but in a superficial and largely meaningless way. Under NPV, campaigns will continue to slice and dice voters according to every demographic and geographic data set available. They will focus on areas where the cost of campaigning, per person, is low and where the number of undecided voters is high.

Where would that leave Vermont? As one of the country’s low population density areas, candidates would have little interest in the Green Mountain State under NPV (unless the state becomes much more urban). How many voters and hour can a person contact in Vermont versus any borough in New York City or any suburb of Los Angeles?

With the Electoral College on the other hand, Vermonters need only find themselves evenly divided in a presidential contest and they’ll get all the attention–and probably more–than any American voters could want.

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.