A common and longstanding complaint is that the Electoral College gives a boost to the political power of small states. This is the result of every state starting with at least three electoral votes, regardless of how small a state’s population. Yet the reason for this is the Electoral College is based on Congress, where each state has two Senators and at least one Representative. Any complaint about boosting the power of small state voters applies all the more to the Senate. While there are some radical political progressives who favor abolishing the Senate, most Americans accept the importance of checks and balances and separated powers. Indeed the National Popular Vote campaign avoids this issue altogether.

What NPV does argue is that the campaign focus on swing states is undemocratic. (There is an instructive tension between this argument and the preceding one–there are different ways to think about the power of an individual vote in a particular election.) Yet this charge applies far more to the House of Representatives. About half as many people live in swing congressional districts as in swing states. This is partly a result of Gerrymandering–the manipulative drawing of congressional districts. All Americans would benefit if those behind NPV would stop trying to manipulate presidential elections and try to figure out a better way to draw congressional districts.

The final charge made against the Electoral College is that it can produce a result at odds with the popular vote. Yet again, this same thing can and does occur in Congress. In fact, any legislative body elected by districts is subject to this same disconnect between the total popular vote and the results by district. This happens when Party One wins its districts by larger margins than Party Two. Party One might win the most votes overall, but not win as many districts as Party Two. The Speaker of the House–third in the line of presidential succession–is elected by members of the House without regard to which party received the most popular votes in House elections.

It is and will remain easy to complain about the Electoral College. Yet on closer inspection, the three most common complaints apply even more to Congress. Why then do groups like National Popular Vote focus exclusively on the presidency? That is a question for them to answer. Whether these or other complaints are valid at all is yet another question.

Of course, none of these things are true. That didn’t stop lobbyists and legislators at a hearing yesterday in Salem, Ore.

National Popular Vote (NPV) is an interstate compact–an agreement that states can join by enacting legislation. While motivated by disdain for the state-by-state election process created by the Electoral College, NPV would leave the Electoral College in place. Instead, states would pledge to ignore their own voters and give away their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide. The founder of NPV described it as an “end run” around the Constitution.

Eight states, including Washington, have adopted NPV. Because the compact is only triggered if passed by enough states to control the outcome of the election, it is not yet in effect. Oregon is considering becoming the ninth. The state’s NPV bill, House Bill 3077, was up for a public hearing in the Rules Committee yesterday. (I provided testimony on behalf of the Freedom Foundation’s Save Our States project.)

NPV supporters claim that only swing states matter. Every other state and all the voters in them are “ignored” or even “disenfranchised.” This, they say, leads voters to tune out and maybe not even vote.

Every Obama bumper sticker in Portland is evidence against this claim. Oregon is a politically active state with high voter turnout, despite being a relatively “safe” state in recent presidential elections. I’m sure there was no lack of coffee shop and dinner table discussion of presidential politics anywhere in Oregon last year. NPV’s claims are simply false.

Voters are no more disenfranchised by living in a “safe” presidential state than they are by living in a politically lopsided congressional district or city council district. Across the country, many election outcomes are predictable once the primaries are over. Nevertheless, all the votes are counted. Usually, both major parties field candidates. Sometimes there are upsets. And voters still vote.

If NPV thinks voters in safe states or districts shouldn’t vote, clearly many voters disagree. On this basis alone, NPV supporters ought to reconsider their position, or at least these arguments.

Cross-posted from LibertyLive.org.

Yesterday, however, one LA Times writer attempted to utilize James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, to back up this position. He wrote:

———–

“Just don’t try making sense of the electoral college.  Here’s the way one American articulated the problem: “The present rule of voting for president … is so great a departure from the Republican principle of numerical equality … and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate and best friends.”

The speaker’s name was Madison, as in James Madison.”

—————–

Wonder what that ellipsis is doing at the beginning of the Madison quote?  It is the LA Times obscuring the fact that James Madison was NOT talking about a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral College.  He was talking about a constitutional amendment to get rid of the House contingent election.  This contingent election is a back-up election procedure that is used only if no one gets a majority in the Electoral College. The last time the House contingent election procedure was used was in 1824.

In other words, Madison was talking about something entirely different than the LA Times piece!

The full Madison quote, with omissions bolded, is:

—————–

“But with all possible abatements the present rule of voting for President by the H. of Reps. is so great a departure from the Republican principle of numerical equality, and even from the federal rule which qualifies the numerical by a State equality, and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate & best friends.

—————–

Madison’s full letter can be found here:

True, Madison was not completely satisfied by the Constitution’s presidential election system, as a reading of this letter will show. But he was not trying to get rid of it entirely, either.  He was arguing for adjustments here and there.  Ironically, his proposal for an allocation of presidential electors by district would have made the Electoral College less purely democratic—presumably not the goal of the LA Times.  The remainder of Madison’s dissatisfaction had to do with the House contingent election, a procedure that was used twice in Madison’s lifetime but has never been used since.

The LA Times has every right to write against the Electoral College, and it is perfectly welcome to use any statement from any Founding Father when it does so.  But its dishonest use of ellipses says an awful lot about the weakness of its arguments against America’s unique and successful presidential election system.

Follow Tara on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TaraRoss.1787

In a surprise move last week, Louisiana’s Committee on House and Governmental Affairs approved the National Popular Vote legislation, sending the bill to the House floor.  In a near simultaneous move, a Senate committee also considered the measure. According to the agenda, NPV was added at the very last minute. Fortunately, no vote was taken in the Senate committee last week, and the issue appears to have been deferred for now.

If Jindal is serious about making sure that NPV is not enacted in Louisiana, then he needs to do his best to get it killed in the legislature. A simple reliance on his veto power won’t cut it. Unfortunately, a reasonable legal argument can be made that the veto will not be legally binding, even if he issues it.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . . .”  The precise definition of “Legislature” determines whether a veto can kill NPV in any state. If “Legislature” refers specifically to the lawmaking body and not to a state’s lawmaking process, then gubernatorial vetoes are irrelevant. State legislatures can join NPV’s compact, with or without their Governors. A veto in Louisiana would be irrelevant—just as Governor Donald Carcieri’s 2008 veto of the same legislation in Rhode Island may not have mattered.

It is hard to know what the Court would hold, but there are reasonable arguments to be made on either side of this issue (see bottom of page 41, here).

Jindal’s office has already expressed its opposition to the National Popular Vote legislation. That is a good start.  Now he needs to spend some time at the Capitol talking to legislators and helping them to understand the importance of protecting the Electoral College—especially in a relatively small state like Louisiana.

Otherwise, he may find that Louisiana will become the first red state to fall for NPV’s misguided sound bites.

Tara Ross is the author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College

Sadly, this independent-minded state is on the verge of happily and peacefully blending into the masses.

Last week, a Rhode Island House committee approved a measure that could lead to effective elimination of the Electoral College. This National Popular Vote compact would require Rhode Island to award its presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote. So far, eight states plus the District of Columbia have approved the legislation. NPV’s compact goes into effect when states holding 270 electors (enough to win an election) have agreed to its terms.

The bill may now be on a fast track in Rhode Island. NPV has already been scheduled for consideration by the full House on Wednesday, April 11. If it passes the House, then Rhode Island’s acceptance of NPV’s anti-Electoral College compact is a near certainty: The Senate has expressed its enthusiasm for the bill early and often, approving it in three prior sessions (2008, 2009, 2011).

Rhode Island legislators have been told that the direct election system advocated by NPV will amplify its voice in presidential elections. The advice they are being given is faulty. But the irony of the situation is even more glaring.

Rhode Island, the smallest state, is taking the advice of a group founded and headquartered in the nation’s largest state, California. It is hard to imagine Rhode Islanders in the late 1700s taking advice from any other state, much less a large state. If Rhode Island had bothered to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention, one has to imagine that its delegates would have agreed with the sentiments of those small state delegates who remained distrustful of the large states. In one stunning speech, Gunning Bedford of Delaware went so far as to declare to the large state delegates: “I do not, gentlemen, trust you. If you possess the power, the abuse of it could not be checked; and what then would prevent you from exercising it to our destruction?

Such distrust led directly to constitutional institutions such as the Electoral College. Rhode Island would be well advised to follow Bedford’s advice.

NPV’s solution will lead to the destruction of the feisty small state independence that has been so long valued in Rhode Island.

UPDATE:  Good news!  The vote on the bill has been delayed until May 1.

Tara Ross is the author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.

The rest of this post appears at National Review Online.

Those who have been following this issue may recall that the NPV legislation is being carried over from last spring’s session.  Last year, NPV was passed out of two Senate legislative committees. It is making one final stop in the Senate Finance Committee before moving to the Senate floor.

It is a bit amazing that this legislation is being considered in Alaska at all. The Electoral College is an important institution for all of us, but small states should work extra hard to protect it.  Alaska is a big state, but it is a small state in the world of presidential politics.

It is a sure bet that some voters would like to have input into the matter but missed last week’s hearing, due to the short notice. It is not too late to call or write your Senator! Those who live in Alaska should call and register their opinion on this dangerous legislation before it is too late.

Don’t forget to applaud Senator McGuire for withdrawing her sponsorship of the legislation on Monday!

The legislative history for this bill can be found here: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_complete_bill.asp?session=27&bill=SB39

Senator’s contact information can be found here: http://senate.legis.state.ak.us/

Senate Finance Committee information can be found here: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_com_info.asp?comm=SFIN&session=27

The original post can be found on Tara’s Facebook page here.

I was honored to participate in the first panel, and even more honored that it was hosted by Edwin Meese III, the former Attorney General and Heritage’s Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow. Also on the panel was Heritage Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky and Dr. Michael Uhlmann of the Claremont Graduate University. Each of these men has written eloquently on this topic. Von Spakovsky, a national expert on election law and policy, recently authored a Heritage Legal Memo explaining why “NPV would be a disaster.” Uhlmann has written in defense of the Electoral College since the 1970s, including this Claremont Review of Books essay and a contribution to this important book.

While that event is not currently available online, video from the most recent one, featuring Sen. Mitch McConnell, is below and provides several important perspectives of what is at stake in the contention over the process for electing the President of the United States.

A new poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer to scrap the World Series. A shocking 68% of Americans instead believe that Major League Baseball should rely upon “total runs scored” during the regular baseball season when deciding who should be crowned the MLB champion. This number is a sharp rise from polls taken a decade ago, but still falls slightly behind the 72% majority that preferred change in 1960. In that year, the Yankees scored a record 55 runs against the Pittsburgh Pirates, but still lost the Series.

Joe Ball, President of FairBaseball, explained the sentiment driving the call for change: “The World Series is fundamentally unfair! One team can score a majority of runs during the course of seven games, yet still lose the championship. Every run should be equal, whether it was obtained in Game 3 or Game 6 of the series. A team should not be able to win the championship simply because it won 4 out of 7 games.”

Ball concluded, “One time in American history the team scoring the most runs failed to win the championship. Outrageously, the 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates won the World Series despite scoring only 27 runs to the Yankees’ 55. Moreover, crisis has been narrowly avoided on several other occasions. We must act now before another baseball team is stripped of victory, despite its demonstrated ability to score more runs than its opponent.”

Supporters of the World Series note that the 7-game series was created decades ago because the founders of MLB knew that important principles would be served by such a structure. They wanted to identify the most well-rounded team: Champions should be able to do well in a variety of circumstances; they should not do well only when a particular hitter is matched against a particular pitcher or only when the team is playing in a certain type of stadium. Sam Homer, president of Save Baseball, explained: “MLB should not crown a team as champion simply because it was able to win a few lopsided victories. If we eliminate the World Series, championships could be won by a team that lost the vast majority of its games but racked up dozens of runs when its best player was able to hit home runs on his own home turf.”

Homer concluded that baseball fans should keep the World Series for the same reason that Americans rely upon the Electoral College during presidential elections. Both were created with the same goal in mind: Just as MLB seeks the most well-rounded team for its champion, so the Electoral College awards the presidency to the most well-rounded candidate. The nation’s Founders wanted to ensure that the President would not simply represent big states and urban areas. Instead, a winning candidate should appeal to a variety of states, cities and regions. Our uniquely big and diverse country deserves its unique presidential election system. After all, this system must identify the candidate best suited to represent a cross-section of Americans.

Original post appears on Tara Ross’s Facebook page: http://on.fb.me/rVfxst

A voice in the ad pretends to be an announcer at a baseball game:

“It’s all tied up folks, bottom of the 9th, the bases loaded, here comes the pitch – Golly did he get a hold of that one! It’s going, it’s going, it’s gone! A home run! But stand by folks, the baseball Electoral College is chewing this one over. Philly loses; they lose!  Sorry folks, under electoral college rules, the team with the most runs doesn’t always win.”

At first glance, NPV’s argument sounds irrefutable. None of us have ever been to a baseball game in which a team scores the most runs, but still loses. NPV hopes to stoke our sense of unfairness. That Electoral College!  It is just wrong that the team scoring the most runs loses!

But NPV relied on the wrong analogy. The Electoral College is not like a single baseball game, but like the World Series.  In the World Series, the team winning the most games wins.  This may or may not be the same as the team that scored the most runs throughout the course of those seven games.  We don’t find this unfair.  Instead, we understand that the rules of baseball rely upon “number of games won” instead of “number of runs scored” for a reason.  The champion of baseball should be the most well-rounded team, as demonstrated by an ability to win games in a variety of circumstances.  The champion of baseball should not be a team that wins lopsided victories, perhaps when a particular hitter is matched against a particular pitcher.

NPV is correct that baseball will show us how the presidential election game should work. But the correct analogy is the World Series, not a single baseball game. America’s presidential election system seeks a well-rounded candidate who can win electoral victories in many circumstances. It is not looking for a candidate who can rack up a lot votes in one region, state or with the voters of one special interest group.

This post originally appeared on Tara’s Facebook page, here: http://on.fb.me/ruhQpy

Some Pennsylvania Republicans have proposed an alternative: a congressional district system. One elector would be given to the winner of each district; the two remaining Pennsylvania electors would go to the winner of the state’s popular vote. Republicans would likely gain 11 or 12 electors in 2012. Needless to say, many Democrats are protesting the effort (see: here, here, and here).

Ultimately, Pennsylvania must decide for itself what to do. But there are several pros and cons to consider.

This piece was originally posted on National Review Online. Please click here for the rest of the post.

One of the great strengths of the current system is the great discretion given to state legislatures in picking a manner of elector allocation. If Pennsylvania legislators deem this method to be in their interest, then they should go for it. The rest of the states retain their ability to choose a different method, as dictated by the needs of their states.

Importantly, this proposal differs from the NPV plan recently adopted by California and other states (http://bit.ly/oMZLCb). NPV purports to rely on the states’ discretion to choose electors; in reality, it would rob most states of their ability to have any voice in choosing a presidential election system for this country.

More about Pennsylvania’s effort appears here: http://on.fb.me/pfsTL7

Originally posted on Tara’s Facebook page at http://on.fb.me/nemfNs