By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Virginia’s governor has signed a national popular vote bill, bringing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact closer to activation. This compact will award presidential electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, once states with a combined majority of 270 electoral votes join. Supporters argue this aligns with constitutional provisions allowing states to direct their electors and that such an agreement does not require congressional approval. With 63% of Americans favoring a national popular vote, this development signifies a substantial step towards potentially electing the president based on nationwide vote totals.
Read the original article here
The United States seems to be inching ever closer to a system where the popular vote directly determines the winner of presidential elections. This shift is primarily being driven by the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement among participating states to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. It’s a fascinating development, and one that many see as a significant step towards a more truly democratic process.
For a long time, the conversation around presidential elections has been dominated by the Electoral College, and the outsized importance of a few swing states. People living in states that reliably vote one way or the other often feel their vote doesn’t carry much weight in the national outcome. The idea that a vote cast in a “safe” state is effectively “thrown in the trash” is a sentiment that resonates with many, and the prospect of a national popular vote promises to change that entirely, making every vote count equally, regardless of location.
This move towards a popular vote victory is seen by many as a crucial win for democracy itself. Imagine a system where campaigns are incentivized to engage with voters across the entire nation, not just a select few battleground states. The current system often leads to candidates pouring resources and attention into a handful of swing states, leaving the rest of the country feeling neglected and unheard. The popular vote compact, proponents argue, would finally give every citizen a more direct say in who leads the country.
The idea that a national popular vote would be a boon for democracy is met with strong enthusiasm by many, with some urging for its immediate implementation. The current system, where the outcome can hinge on the results in just a handful of states, often feels arbitrary and undemocratic to those not living in those pivotal locations. It feels like a step away from the “land of the free” and towards a more basic, fundamental form of democracy where the will of the majority truly prevails.
However, this move isn’t without its potential hurdles and criticisms. Some express skepticism, particularly regarding the current Supreme Court’s potential stance on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. There are also concerns about how the compact would interact with existing constitutional frameworks. The Compact Clause, for instance, requires congressional consent for interstate compacts that could impact federal power, and it’s unclear how Congress, or a President who might veto such a measure, would react.
Another significant point of contention revolves around the role of “faithless electors.” Even if the compact were to achieve the necessary 270 electoral votes, questions arise about how to ensure electors actually vote in accordance with the national popular vote, especially if their state’s outcome differs. While courts have generally bound electors to their state’s results, applying this to a national mandate presents a new legal challenge that would likely end up in the courts.
The political landscape also plays a significant role in the debate. A key observation is that the states signing onto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact have largely been solidly blue states. This has led some to question the compact’s effectiveness without broader bipartisan support, particularly from swing or red states. The concern is that if only blue states join, it might simply guarantee a Democratic president without truly changing the fundamental dynamics of presidential elections for the entire country.
There’s also a prevailing sentiment that the Republican Party would likely oppose such a move, as it’s perceived that they would struggle to win national elections under a popular vote system. This perception, however, is contested by some who argue that Republicans have, at times, won the national popular vote, and that the shifting demographics of voter groups might make this less of a certainty. Regardless, the political alignment of states currently participating in the compact suggests a significant partisan divide on the issue.
Beyond the compact itself, some argue that ranked-choice voting, perhaps in conjunction with a popular vote system, could offer a more nuanced and representative electoral outcome. The idea is to move beyond a simple winner-take-all scenario and incorporate a more complex understanding of voter preferences. This could lead to a more robust and less polarizing electoral process, further strengthening democratic principles.
The practicalities of implementing such a change also raise questions. Some point out the potential for states to manipulate their vote counts to influence the national popular vote outcome, raising concerns about oversight and the integrity of the process. The reliance on states to run their own elections, while a fundamental aspect of the US system, could become a point of vulnerability if not carefully managed in the context of a national popular vote agreement.
Despite these challenges and debates, there’s a palpable sense of momentum. The growing number of states joining the compact, even if not yet reaching the 270 electoral vote threshold, signals a significant movement towards reimagining how presidential elections are decided. The current political climate, marked by deep division and close elections, further amplifies the desire for a system that feels more inclusive and representative of the entire nation’s will.
Some of the arguments against a pure popular vote system center on the idea that it could lead to the rise of populist leaders who appeal to fleeting popular sentiment without offering sound governance. This, they argue, was a key concern for the founders when establishing the Electoral College. However, even those who hold this view often acknowledge the need for some form of accounting for the national popular vote, suggesting a potential for hybrid systems that incorporate both popular will and some checks and balances.
Ultimately, the push for a national popular vote to decide presidential elections represents a profound evolution in American political thought. While significant legal, political, and practical obstacles remain, the journey toward this goal highlights a growing desire for a more direct and equitable democratic process, where every citizen’s voice carries the same weight in shaping the nation’s future. The conversation is ongoing, and the ultimate outcome is far from certain, but the direction of travel seems to be steadily pointing towards a system where the popular will, writ large across the nation, holds sway.