Blog

Originally, the League of Women Voters opposed the National Popular Vote interstate compact. The LWV has, since the 1970s, demanded a constitutional amendment to end the Electoral College. It condemned the NPV compact as insufficient but changed position after several left-leaning states signed on. All this is the height of irony, because the League of Women Voters uses its own electoral college to choose its own president.

The LWV is a federation: the national organization is made up of state and local chapters. Members do not vote for their national president or other national leadership. Instead, members elect delegates, or elect state leaders who appoint delegates, who are the real voters (electors) in national LWV elections. 

Let’s be clear: the LWV system is not “one person, one vote.” LWV elections are especially indirect—or what they might call undemocratic. It is certainly possible for the LWV to elect national officers who would not be the preference of a majority of their members.

First, no matter how small a local chapter is, it gets at least one delegate. This can dramatically inflate the voting power of the smallest LWV chapters. Then, the number of delegates increases based on increments of 50 members. That means a chapter with 51 members will have twice the voting power of one with 49 members. The LWV lets members of local chapters vote directly for their delegates, but it also lets state boards appoint delegates. Here again, voting power is based on increments of 50 members. Eventually, these delegates cast the votes for LWV’s president and other national officers.

Hypocrites? Absolutely. The League of Women Voters attacks the Electoral College as “convoluted,” but its own election process is more complex. It points out that our national election is not a direct election, but the LWV’s national election isn’t direct either. It says the Electoral College does not necessarily mirror the popular will, but neither does the LWV election process have to reflect the will of its own national membership. (My colleague, Sean Parnell, has cataloged more LWV criticisms here.)

At least in its bylaws, the LWV understands the benefits of a multi-step election process. The organization is more effective because it is broken down into chapters. The local chapters are small enough to have direct elections, but at the national level, the LWV is a federation. In one way, it is made up of all its members, but in another it is made up of each of its chapters. The LWV’s national election process recognizes, accepts, and uses this reality.

There is nothing wrong with the LWV national election process, just like there is nothing wrong with the Electoral College. Scale matters in elections. What works well for 10 people may not work at all for 10,000. Structure matters too—in a nation of states, the Electoral College helps to keep control of elections at the state level.