Blog

One consequence of the Electoral College is a practical respect for states, both their boundaries and their legislatures. While the federal government has assumed many powers once left to the states, running elections remains primarily a state function.

This could not be true if there was a nationwide popular vote for president. Supporters of the National Popular Vote interstate compact (NPV) agree. Vikram David Amar, a law professor who, with his brother, helped develop the idea behind the compact, has written about this in The Atlantic.

Perhaps the greatest risk for “glitches” [in NPV] arises from the fact that there is substantial nonuniformity among the states … on the questions of who votes, how votes are cast, and how votes are counted and recounted. This lack of uniformity undermines the normative appeal of the move to a national popular vote and also raises the specter of electoral crises…. My brother and I noted—indeed, highlighted—these problems and identified workable solutions when we first analyzed the idea of state-level movement toward direct election almost two decades ago.

But drafters of the NPV plan in play today did not incorporate any of the solutions to state nonuniformity that we proferred [sic]; they did not build into the plan uniform rules of voting eligibility, uniform presidential ballots, and an election-dispute procedure. They also didn’t delegate authority to do so to a nongovernmental commission in the way we suggested could be done. Nor did they affirmatively invite Congress to step in. But Congress will need to do so.

Imagine every election dispute suddenly federalized. And who carries into execution the laws passed by Congress? Ah yes, the executive, led by the President of the United States.

Federalizing control of elections means putting presidents in charge of presidential elections. With the Electoral College, that power is decentralized and kept far from the White House. 

There are always tradeoffs in public policy, and they are obvious in the case of American federalism (our system of states). Uniformity can be, at least in theory, less messy than allowing 50 states and the District of Columbia to have their own rules. Yet keeping power in the states has many benefits. It allows for different policies that can be adjusted to local differences. It means more voters “win” because a majority in one state can do something different than the majority in another state. And as all this happens, state-by-state governance allows us to learn as we compare different policies and their results.

The Electoral College keeps presidents from controlling their own elections. It supports the system of constitutional federalism, meant to keep power in the states. This system, when maintained, is good for voters, for public policy, and for liberty.

Part of this article is adapted from the Encounter Broadside book, Why We Must Defend the Electoral College, by Trent England.

Learn more about the Electoral College at ElectoralCollege101.com.