The tinfoil-hatted faction, which includes moon-landing deniers and such crackpots as William F. Buckley Jr. and Russell Kirk, who have been cast out of mainstream conservatism, has set itself the goal of derailing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a constitutionally conservative agreement that guarantees 270 electoral votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most individual votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Fifteen states and the District have already adopted the agreement, giving it 196 of the 270 Electoral College votes needed to take effect.
As the momentum for reform gathers in New Hampshire, one expert has suggested that the Granite State should break federal law, specifically Section 3, Title 3 of the United States Code — a provision in effect since 1887 — to thwart plans to ultimately determine the outcome of the presidential election nationwide.
This particularly crazy idea would see New Hampshire refuse to release the official state vote tally until after the electors meet to officially choose a fresh president and vice president in December after the election. Without a final national popular vote tally, the reasoning goes, the president and vice president could not be legally certified. One can only imagine federal marshals breaking down the doors of the N.H. secretary of state’s office to secure the voter registration. Saturday Night Live writers, take note: there’s a sketch here.
Jokes aside, stern questions remain for the anti-National Popular Vote. It would be enlightening for them to answer the following questions:
Why are you so afraid of the United States Constitution?
Under Article 2, Section 1, the framers of the Constitution gave state legislatures the authority to apportion electoral votes in any manner they saw fit. The 16 jurisdictions that passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact did so under the full authority of the Constitution. Did the framers get it wrong?
Why are you so afraid of the American people?
Under the agreement, which preserves the Electoral College while adopting a nationwide popular vote, the candidate who receives the most votes is always president. No vote is canceled. Whether you support the majority winner in your state or not, your vote counts for your candidate. Every voter in every state becomes essential in every presidential election. What’s so wrong with that?
Why are you so afraid of including and empowering compact and rural states that are virtually ignored in the current system?
Every state should be a battleground state. A vote in New Hampshire should count as much as a vote in Florida, Ohio, or any other jurisdiction. That’s what the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is all about. Because every vote is equal and essential, it’s obvious that candidates will be forced to campaign in states they would never visit under the current system. Think of Democrats campaigning in red-wall states like Kansas and Republicans cruising in blue-wall states like Massachusetts. The walls are falling down. What’s wrong with that?
Why are you so concerned about increasing voter turnout across the country?
Overall voter turnout in 2016 was 61.4 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The 12 so-called key swing states that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton went to saw higher overall turnout than the other 38 flyover states. The implication is clear: When candidates show up in a state, voters show up. A presidential election under the pact would require candidates to campaign from sea to sea. Isn’t that better than limiting presidential campaigns to a handful of swing states, ignoring some 215 million people?
New Hampshire is poised to become one of the first states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in 2020. And believe me when I say: New Hampshire, have nothing to fear.
