Opponents of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact often rely on flawed arguments to defend the status quo. The most critical of these is the objection that I like to call the “little state reshuffle.” The opposing argument goes something like this: “The Electoral College is designed to protect small states, and the majority of voters in small states are Republicans. That is why the current system is good for small states and, therefore, for Republican presidential candidates.” When confronted with facts that contradict this faulty narrative, they claim you are a fool for liberal Democrats.
I’ll take the last piece first. Like President Trump, I am a Republican who supports greater emphasis on popular vote for president. I also support keeping our Electoral College system. As a Republican activist, I have served in three New England states, including my home state of Connecticut, in a variety of capacities, including chairman of the party’s statewide auxiliary, as a member of the presidential campaign steering committee, and as a candidate for statewide office.
Two of these states, Connecticut and Rhode Island, are small Democrat-controlled states, each with seven and four electoral votes, respectively. Still, I ran in the presidential election because I believe that small-state voters trapped behind a blue or red wall should have a politically relevant vote in the presidential election. As the leader of a small-state conservative, I support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact – a proposal that preserves state power to award electors and guarantees the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all fifty states and the District of Columbia at any given time are states with more than 270 votes in the compact electoral college (majority of the Electoral College).
One of the biggest misconceptions is that small countries benefit from the current winner-takes-all state system. The fact is that 11 of the 13 smallest states were completely ignored in the presidential elections of 2008, 2012 and 2016. Rhode Island was ignored in the general election because it was clear that a Democrat would win the popular vote and therefore win all Rhode Island electoral votes. Alaska was ignored because it was clear the Republican would win there. The extensive majority of the smallest states – those with 4 or fewer electoral votes – are politically ignored in presidential elections because their politics are dominated by one major party or the other. This lack of political relevance reduces our countries’ effective influence over incumbent presidents.
Another misconception is that Republican voters dominate in small states. In fact, most small states have gone Democratic in six of the last seven presidential elections. Another New England state where I have served the Republican Party in many capacities is New Hampshire, originally a red state and more recently a purple state, but becoming bluer with each election.
Regardless of political makeup, small flyover states do not have three electoral votes to make voters in battleground states more critical. They have three electoral votes to maximize the political influence of their countries’ citizens. The current system is failing small countries in every respect.
The 12 small non-battleground states (except New Hampshire) have a combined population of just over 11 million people. Ohio has almost the same population as these 12 low-population states. The 12 small states have 40 electoral votes, while Ohio has 18 electoral votes. In 2013, 11 million people living in battleground Ohio attended 73 post-convention campaign events, while 11 million people in small non-battleground states made a total of three visits (all to 2 Maine statesII Congressional District). North Dakota was completely ignored, as were Delaware and America’s eight smallest states.
In brief, political power under the current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes to states does not come from the number of electoral votes a state has. Instead, political power comes from whether a state is closely divided politically.
Thanks to the National Popular Vote, every voter in every state will be politically relevant in every presidential election. A Republican from Connecticut or Rhode Island will be just as critical as a Democrat from Idaho. Small-state voters will no longer call “get out the vote” in the closest battleground state – as Republicans and Democrats routinely do in Delaware or Rhode Island, where phone banks connect to the battleground state of Pennsylvania. Instead, we will focus on turnout in our own states, because every voter in every state will have a significant impact on the outcome of the race.
Let’s have a sedate conversation about how we will elect the president of the United States. Let’s evaluate the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact for what it is and what problems it can support solve. Let’s not focus on false arguments based on faulty civic knowledge and historical ignorance.
I am a conservative. I’m a small-state Republican. I also support the National Popular Vote interstate compact. I want every voter in every state to matter politically in every presidential election.
