Blog

We’re rapidly approaching election day, so it seems like good time to check a claim made by lobbyists for the National Popular Vote interstate compact (NPV). Does it hold up to reality? The claim is that under the present system candidates largely ignore issues of national importance and instead focus on topics that are primarily of interest to voters in so-called “swing states.”

Nevada’s news media, for example, last year reported this statement by an NPV lobbyist, predicting what would happen if the compact were in effect:

“We're going to see them being more concerned about issues on a national level, rather than really specialized interests that affect a small amount of chronically undecided voters in these states…”

So, how are candidates faring in terms of addressing “issues on a national level,” as opposed to “really specialized interests” in swing states? I’ve looked around at some recent polling data on what voters nationally are most interested in, which seem to be (in no particular order) the following: prices/inflation, immigration, abortion, health care, democracy, housing affordability, and jobs and the economy (sources: Statista, The Economist/YouGov, Quinnipiac, and Emerson College).

So, what are the candidates talking about? Well, according to the news coverage I’ve seen, they’re talking about: prices/inflation, immigration, abortion, health care, democracy, housing affordability, and jobs and the economy. Oh.

As is typically the case, there’s little overlap between the claims of NPV’s lobbyists and reality. 

I’m sure there are instances where candidates do, in fact, address issues of interest to smaller, more localized voting blocs. But isn’t that a good thing, so long as national issues get talked about, too? Candidates focus on the big, national issues, but also make space on their agenda for issues that affect smaller groups of voters. Just because an issue is only important in one state or community, does that really mean it’s unworthy of any attention? 

An obvious example is the plight of the fishing industry as a result of tariffs imposed by China – something that could get no attention in an election focused solely on national issues but that, at least according to NPV’s lobbyists (and they may well be right on this one), was brought to the president’s attention due to his desire to win electoral votes in Maine.

The Electoral College gives us the best of both worlds: candidates for president must pay attention to issues of national importance because voters in swing states care about those issues too, but they must also care about how federal policy affects smaller groups that lack national stature but are of particular interest to voters in swing states (and often in “safe states” as well – Alaska’s seafood industry was probably the biggest beneficiary of the President’s policy shift). 

It’s a pity the folks at National Popular Vote seek to shut down this balanced election process. They actually promise that their plan would cut out all but the largest voting blocs and interest groups from the policy agenda of presidential candidates.