In a recent surprising interview for New York TimesPresident Trump reflected on his sweeping electoral college victory. And more importantly, how Hillary had managed to ruin it. She had spent too much time focusing on the popular vote, he said. He, on the other hand, knew how critical it was to take care of the electoral college.
And by the way, I had nothing to do with Russia. I won because I was a much better candidate. I won because I campaigned properly and she didn’t. She campaigned for the popular vote. I he led the election campaign for the Electoral College. And, you know, it’s a whole different thing, Mike. You know, the Electoral College, it’s like a track star. If you’re going to run 100 yards, you train differently than if you’re going to run 1,000 meters or a mile.
And that’s different. That’s in golf. If you have a tournament and you have match play or stroke play, you prepare differently, believe it or not. That’s different. Match play is very different from stroke play. And you prepare. So I went to Maine five times, I went to [inaudible]the genius of the Electoral College is that you can go places you might not otherwise go. (New York Times)
His comments give us a chance to reexamine the current electoral process—a process that the Presidential Election Research Institute wants to put into practice.
This summer, Townhall attended a seminar organized by IRPE that proposed a National Popular Vote Act to guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most votes. Their goal is to make every vote count the same. State legislatures would change their laws to award electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, regardless of individual state results. Ten states (CA, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, and WA) and the District of Columbia have passed legislation, but the interstate compact will not go into effect until 270 electoral votes are collected, the group said. explains.
Matt was the first of us Townhallers to attend the conference and delve into IRPE’s arguments. As he noted, a popular vote would have particular appeal to demographic groups that tend to feel marginalized in general elections—such as conservatives in New York and California.
A common fear is that rural communities will be ignored. IRPE responds to these concerns by noticing how candidates campaign in key states like Ohio, where every vote is equal.
“There is no evidence that they ignored rural areas or favored large cities in elections where every vote is equal and the winner is the candidate who receives the most votes.”
Another question to consider is how this would affect the two main parties. In the current system, independent candidates have little chance of making an impact in a general election.
“Why Independent Candidates Can’t Win” I’m writing The Observer, without subtlety. Writer Michael Malice presents a history of independent candidates who won the most votes but still didn’t come close to winning the presidency. In 1992, Ross Perot won 19 percent of the vote but won no states “because of the nature of American elections.”
Myra Adams, a media producer and writer who served on the McCain Ad Council during McCain’s 2008 campaign, made her own case for the agreement. explains in an editorial for RedState that it has the potential to turn the entire country into one giant battlefield, rather than having half the country sit on the sidelines and watch the candidates fight gladiator-style in 12 arenas.
Yes, it is “another matter altogether” and unfair to Americans in the 38 non-battleground states who are relegated to the role of mere spectators while they watch all the action in 12 states. Ultimately, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would mean that every American vote for president would count in determining the winner. What a revolutionary concept!
This is not a fringe movement. As Politico reminds us, the national popular vote system is further along than we think.
I made the same discovery when I attended the IRPE conference last summer, especially when I learned that Florida was taking steps toward enacting NPV. In October, it gained more wings when a Democratic state representative introduced Bill which gave Florida’s electoral votes to the candidate who won the national popular vote. Tampa Bay Times doesn’t think the bill has a chance of passing, but the bill has been supported by the League of Women Voters of Florida.
“Passage of this bill by the Florida Legislature would ensure that Floridians’ votes in the presidential election would count equally with those of all other states, which is not currently the case,” said league president Pamela. “Florida’s votes are only worth one-third of those of less populated states because of the Electoral College formula.”
Given that most of the states that have passed the deal so far are Democratic, some say the only way to move forward is to appeal to the other party.
“It is time for the movement to focus on the five to 10 Republican states that have enough Electoral College votes to place on their 2018 ballots a state constitutional amendment or, if appropriate, a referendum in support of the National Popular Vote Compact.” I’m writing one supporter in Guardian of the Sun.
As for lawmakers hoping to get rid of the Electoral College altogether if Trump wins, their actions aren’t getting nearly as much attention.
