We’re talking, of course, about the Electoral
College*. Some political historians predict that the College may be
closing shop come 2016, based on forecasts that Romney could lose the election
despite winning the popular vote. It’s happened before in American
history – that is, the candidate who won the popular vote came up short in the
Electoral College, but this would be the first time that it would deny the
Republicans the White House.
The current movement to eliminate the Electoral College
is called NPVIC (the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) and over the
last four years, a majority of state legislatures have actively debated joining
the Compact. Here’s how it works: individual states approve a law which says
that all of their electoral votes will be awarded to the candidate who wins the
national popular vote. So, for example, if South Carolina were to pass
such a law (they have not yet), and Romney wins the popular vote, all 9 of
South Carolina’s electors would be awarded to Romney.
To date, eight states, plus the District of Columbia,
have passed such a law – and here’s the creative part: in each case, the law
doesn’t go into effect until the states in the Compact make up the majority of
the electoral votes (that is, 270 electoral vote from a total of 538).
Currently, the eight states, plus DC, total 132 electoral votes (the eight
states are: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
Vermont and Washington).
In 1969, the U.S. government came close to abolishing the
Electoral College when Congress voted to amend the Constitution. At the
time, 38 state legislatures were required to approve the federal legislation,
but only 31 ratified, and the movement has laid dormant since then, until
now.
Proposing to abolish or amend the Electoral College is
nothing new. The federal web site www.archives.gov
explains that over the past 200 years, “over 700 proposals have been introduced
in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more
proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than
on any other subject.” But the NPVIC may be the one that sticks because of
three factors:
1. The
NPVIC route does not require amending the Constitution;
2. If
Romney wins the popular vote, and loses the White House, this would be the
first time that a Republican would have been denied the White House; and
3. Over
the last four years, at least one house in 31 state legislatures has approved a
bill to comply with the NPVIC (though in 22 states, the agreement has not
become law).
A 2011 Gallup poll found that 62% of Americans favor
replacing the Electoral College with a straight out popular vote, but there
are strong arguments for retaining the current system – most notably that it
protects small states and minority interests. Explained Michael Racette
this August, on the web site www.2paragraphs.com:
“The Electoral College gives
disproportionate voting power to less populous states, which the framers
thought they needed. Because a small state’s few electoral votes might make the
difference in a close election, the current system encourages candidates to
take into consideration the needs and concerns of those states in developing an
election platform (and in governing, if elected). This tends to result in (as
the framers hoped) the nomination of candidates with broad national appeal. The
abilities of ethnic minorities to influence the national election outcome are
also enhanced in the current system, because those population groups tend to
live in or near large cities in large states, thus encouraging candidates to
consider their interests in hopes of capturing large blocks of Electoral
College votes.
“For instance, according to the
2010 U.S. Census, persons identifying themselves as ‘Hispanic or Latino’ comprised
16% of the national population, but far greater portions of the populations of
large electoral states such as Texas (38%), California (38%), Colorado (21%),
and Florida (23%), as well as some other smaller ‘swing’ states, whose votes
might be enough to tip the balance in favor of a candidate in a close election.
The voting power of minority groups would arguably decrease with a direct
national popular vote because candidates might be less inclined to champion
their interests or concerns in favor of majority interests.”
No comments:
Post a Comment