The method of electing the US President by a body of electors acting on behalf of each state was primarily motivated by the 1787 Convention delegates’ lack of trust that the general population of voters would be adequately informed of federal issues to elect a capable President. In the absence of political parties at the time to channel support, the field of candidates was wide open, and delegates expressed concern that voters would only vote for candidates from their own states, with no candidate securing a majority. Fixing the number of a state’s electors as the total of a state’s Congress members gave an obvious advantage to slave states, whose slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes. The record seems to be unclear as to whether this advantage for slave states in the Electoral College was intended or inadvertent.
In any case, today we do not face the supposed problems that were intended to be solved by electing the President by the Electoral College. Instead, this method of electing the President is itself the source of several troubling problems. To date, it has resulted in 1 out of 14 winners of the office who did not win the majority vote. Worse, it induces voter apathy in states where the state’s winner is easily predictable, which is the case in the majority of states these days. This, to my mind, is the most pernicious effect of the Electoral College system--a person who knows that his/her vote for President will not count is a person who is, for all practical purposes, deprived of a vote. In contrast, in those states where the outcome of the race is uncertain (“battleground states”), higher percentages of voters are inspired to vote. Additionally, the Electoral College system ensures that candidates spend almost all their time, attention and money trying to appeal to voters in those few states where the race is close, rather than mounting a national campaign and attending to broader swath of issues.
For more than 80 years now, surveys have consistently shown that the majority of Americans support election of the President by national popular vote. But amending the Constitution requires a great deal of momentum, which, obviously, few issues muster.
Several years ago was founded an organization, National Popular Vote, for the purpose of implementing the proposal of law professors Akhil and Vikram Amar to skirt the Constitutional provision of the Electoral College. It’s such a simple idea it’s confounding that no one thought of it before. The Amar brothers proposed that states could act in concert by way of a compact, which has now become the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC), which states legislatively adopt, wherein each state agrees to pledge its electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationwide. This solves--or will solve--every problem the Electoral College system creates. The NPVC is to take effect and become binding only when adopted by enough states for which the total electoral votes constitutes a majority (i.e., 270 of the 538 electoral votes). So far, 10 states and DC have adopted the compact, possessing a total of 165 electoral votes--61% of the total needed to activate the compact: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." http://constitutionus.com/
So, is the NPVC prohibited by the Constitution? There isn’t a good argument that it is. States may enter into compacts with each other on matters that are within the purview of states’ powers, and the Court held in McPherson v. Blacker (1892) that the Constitution gives Congress specifically limited authority over the matter of states choosing their electors--limited to the number of a state’s electors, the ineligibility of certain persons, the time of choosing electors, and the day on which they cast their votes. All other issues relating to presidential electors are the exclusive province of states.
Currently there exists a variety of compacts between states; every state has entered into and participates in multiple interstate compacts. Congressional consent of a compact is not required prior to states enacting the compact, and Congressional consent may be express or implied, according to Virginia v. Tennessee (1893). The National Popular Vote website addresses the issues of constitutionality more thoroughly: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/section.php?s=16
Note the broad bipartisan support of the NPVC. (Of course, this fact will only horrify partisans.)
So, are you up or down on the NPVC? Is there any good reason to retain the Electoral College system of electing the President? (Almost everyone who voted for the candidate who won the national popular vote hates the Electoral College system when that candidate doesn’t win the majority of electoral votes.) Does the Electoral College system solve any problem? One can note that no other country perceives that there is any problem with electing its chief executive by popular vote.
In any case, today we do not face the supposed problems that were intended to be solved by electing the President by the Electoral College. Instead, this method of electing the President is itself the source of several troubling problems. To date, it has resulted in 1 out of 14 winners of the office who did not win the majority vote. Worse, it induces voter apathy in states where the state’s winner is easily predictable, which is the case in the majority of states these days. This, to my mind, is the most pernicious effect of the Electoral College system--a person who knows that his/her vote for President will not count is a person who is, for all practical purposes, deprived of a vote. In contrast, in those states where the outcome of the race is uncertain (“battleground states”), higher percentages of voters are inspired to vote. Additionally, the Electoral College system ensures that candidates spend almost all their time, attention and money trying to appeal to voters in those few states where the race is close, rather than mounting a national campaign and attending to broader swath of issues.
For more than 80 years now, surveys have consistently shown that the majority of Americans support election of the President by national popular vote. But amending the Constitution requires a great deal of momentum, which, obviously, few issues muster.
Several years ago was founded an organization, National Popular Vote, for the purpose of implementing the proposal of law professors Akhil and Vikram Amar to skirt the Constitutional provision of the Electoral College. It’s such a simple idea it’s confounding that no one thought of it before. The Amar brothers proposed that states could act in concert by way of a compact, which has now become the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC), which states legislatively adopt, wherein each state agrees to pledge its electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationwide. This solves--or will solve--every problem the Electoral College system creates. The NPVC is to take effect and become binding only when adopted by enough states for which the total electoral votes constitutes a majority (i.e., 270 of the 538 electoral votes). So far, 10 states and DC have adopted the compact, possessing a total of 165 electoral votes--61% of the total needed to activate the compact: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." http://constitutionus.com/
So, is the NPVC prohibited by the Constitution? There isn’t a good argument that it is. States may enter into compacts with each other on matters that are within the purview of states’ powers, and the Court held in McPherson v. Blacker (1892) that the Constitution gives Congress specifically limited authority over the matter of states choosing their electors--limited to the number of a state’s electors, the ineligibility of certain persons, the time of choosing electors, and the day on which they cast their votes. All other issues relating to presidential electors are the exclusive province of states.
Currently there exists a variety of compacts between states; every state has entered into and participates in multiple interstate compacts. Congressional consent of a compact is not required prior to states enacting the compact, and Congressional consent may be express or implied, according to Virginia v. Tennessee (1893). The National Popular Vote website addresses the issues of constitutionality more thoroughly: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/section.php?s=16
Note the broad bipartisan support of the NPVC. (Of course, this fact will only horrify partisans.)
So, are you up or down on the NPVC? Is there any good reason to retain the Electoral College system of electing the President? (Almost everyone who voted for the candidate who won the national popular vote hates the Electoral College system when that candidate doesn’t win the majority of electoral votes.) Does the Electoral College system solve any problem? One can note that no other country perceives that there is any problem with electing its chief executive by popular vote.
