The
Electoral
College is
under attack

I am not generally prone to pointing at parts of the National Popular Vote interstate compact (NPV) and saying, “They definitely knew what they were doing here” (unless I’m being sarcastic).

Lobbyists for the National Popular Vote interstate compact (NPV) have a habit of labeling as a “myth” anything that is even slightly critical of or unhelpful to the compact.

Opponents of the Electoral College are crowing about the latest Pew Research Poll, which claims to show that most Americans want a direct election for President. It’s important to note that the poll contrasts the Electoral College with an imaginary election scheme, providing no details at all about the latter. It certainly does not apply to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact scheme, which has many unique problems due to sloppy drafting and its attempt at an end run around the constitutional amendment process. Due to poor civics education, many Americans do not understand the Electoral College. Common misperceptions include the idea that Presidential Electors are politicians or chosen by politicians (the Constitution prohibits federal officials from serving as Electors and every state holds a popular vote to choose its Electors). Another fact that surprises most Americans is how similar our system is to the parliamentary systems used by major democratic nations around the world—in those systems, just like ours, the nationwide popular vote is not determinative. What matters in this debate is what Americans think when they understand the Electoral College, its costs and benefits, and those of any specific alternative. The Pew poll provides no such insights and is thus of no real value in the debate over how best to elect the President of the United States.

What are possible pitfalls of implementing John Koza’s NPV interstate compact? In an overheated and litigious political environment, this is a crucial question.

My first post in this series about flaws and blind spots in John Koza’s NPV interstate compact addressed its reliance on cooperation from non-compact states.

What are possible pitfalls of implementing John Koza’s NPV interstate compact? In an overheated and litigious political environment, this is a crucial question.

What’s the wildest claim made when National Popular Vote interstate compact (NPV) lobbyists court Republicans? Probably that NPV is the antidote to illegal immigration’s effect on reapportionment. Those familiar with the issue will laugh this off, but for everyone else, I’ll explain. The Constitution specifies that congressional seats are apportioned among the states based on total population. The 14th Amendment says: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” This means that non-citizens, including illegal aliens, are counted in the census and become part of the basis for the balance of power in Congress—and in the Electoral College. Enter NPV lobbyists, desperate to pick off a Republican legislator. They say that wiping away state lines from presidential elections will eliminate any distortions based on illegal immigration. This, they suggest, will help Republicans in presidential elections. There are three problems with these claims. The first is that the effect of illegal immigration on apportionment is so small it would probably never affect an election outcome. Only two presidential elections since the Civil War have had a single-digit margin in electoral votes (in both cases, 1876 and 2000, the Republican won). The second is that the effect of illegal immigration on apportionment is far from one-sided. For example, while California benefits the most, Texas gains some power as well. By far the biggest problem, however, is that NPV could make the problem much, much worse. Despite widespread opposition, including among many Democrats, the Progressive Left is determined to allow non-citizens to vote. They have enacted policies to enfranchise non-citizens, including illegal aliens, in parts of California, Maryland, and Vermont, and in Washington, D.C. Their policies and practices in some jurisdictions seem designed to allow non-citizens to vote even where it may be nominally illegal. Today, Maryland's election practices only affect which presidential electors are chosen by Maryland. This is one benefit of the Electoral College, which is designed to contain elections—even for president—within each state. NPV seeks to destroy these safeguards (this is one reason why NPV is unconstitutional). Today, if Maryland or California allow non-citizens to vote, the effects are limited to selecting those states’ electors—and is highly unlikely to change the outcome in either state for the foreseeable future. But under NPV, every ballot counted in one of those states could switch the outcome of NPV’s cabal of states and thus the outcome for the entire nation. Sure, U.S. immigration policy is a flaming mess. NPV’s scheme to manipulate the Electoral College, forcing it to rubber stamp the popular vote result, would pour gasoline on the flames.

The state’s Constitution is clear: to vote for Michigan’s presidential electors, a person must be a state resident.

Lobbyists for the National Popular Vote interstate compact (NPV) often claim their election scheme would benefit the whole country.

Using shady tactics usually reserved for Congress, Minnesota legislators passed an omnibus bill late last week that included the National Popular Vote interstate compact (NPV).