The Center for Competitive Politics is pleased to offer this guest blog post by Tara Ross
“Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. . . . [M]aintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.“
Straightforward advice from a liberal icon of a bygone era. Saul Alinsky doubtless intended to change the world, but one has to wonder if even he would be surprised at how far his “Rules for Radicals” have strayed from their roots in local Chicago politics. Today, some of his principles even seem poised to eliminate an institution that was once thought to be untouchable without a constitutional amendment: the Electoral College.
Perhaps Alinsky would not be surprised at the rapid changes that have overtaken our nation in the past few years. Multiple crises have been generated. The opposition has been hit from many angles, simultaneously. No one can focus on or respond to everything at once. And now, in the midst of health care debates, financial regulatory changes, climate and energy crises, and massive tax and spending conflicts, arrives a little-noticed effort to turn the Electoral College into a relic of history, threatening to effectively nullify part of the Constitution if action is not taken to defend it.
Perhaps Electoral College opponents did not mean to purposefully mimic Alinsky’s strategies. Yet, whether intentionally or unintentionally, it seems that is exactly what is happening. Most Americans have absolutely no idea that the institution is under attack. There is simply too much going on, and no one can follow it all. But as long as Electoral College opponents are allowed to wage their battle behind the scenes, they will continue to gain small victories. Eventually, it will be too late to prevent them from accomplishing their objective.
The primary force behind this movement is a California-based group, National Popular Vote. NPV is asking state legislatures to change the manner in which they award their presidential electors. Most states now award their electors based on the outcome of the popular vote within their own borders. So, for instance, John Kerry obtained California’s 55 electors in 2004 because he won California’s election. If NPV were in place, participating states would instead award their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. If NPV had been operative in California in 2004, the state’s electors would have gone to George W. Bush because he won the national tally. Kerry’s victory within California would have been irrelevant.
NPV’s plan works through an interstate compact that goes into effect when states holding a majority of electors (270) have agreed to it. To date, six states have approved NPV: Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington. Unfortunately, D.C. and New York may not be far behind. The legislatures in California, Rhode Island and Vermont approved the legislation, but the bills were vetoed. (The Rhode Island House later rejected the measure.) These latter states remain important because of a lawsuit that could be filed, claiming that the vetoes are irrelevant.
If each of these ten states is counted, NPV could have as many as 169 electoral votes in favor of its scheme. NPV is deliberately seeking the easiest possible route to change. The support of these states plus D.C. would give NPV 63 percent of the approvals it needs. By contrast, a formal constitutional amendment must be ratified by 38 states. Thus, the same 10 states could lend only 26 percent of the necessary support for an amendment eliminating the Electoral College.
A small minority of state legislatures could decide this issue for the entire country. How shockingly arrogant. Does this handful of legislators have some special claim to wisdom that others do not have? Are they so enlightened that they can unceremoniously dump one of the founding generation’s greatest accomplishments, without input from the rest of the nation?
The Founders considered the method of presidential selection to be a matter of great importance. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention spent months debating the best system for our vast and diverse country. (A country that is even larger and more diverse today than in 1787.) In the end, the delegates explicitly rejected direct popular election. Indeed, it is probable that the small states would never have ratified the Constitution if such a system had been included in the final document. Despite this history, as Cato Institute scholar John Samples has observed, NPV strives to “institute a means of electing the president that was rejected by the Framers of the Constitution. It does so while circumventing the Constitution’s amendment procedures.”
Such a move cannot be justified. The Framers considered and then flatly rejected a direct popular vote system. If such a decision is to be reversed, then the only appropriate way to do it is through a formal constitutional amendment. If a minority of states instead claims the ability to change the election system through an interstate compact, then a lawsuit seeking to throw out the compact is inevitable. Unfortunately, for reasons that have been discussed elsewhere, the outcome of a lawsuit challenging the National Popular Vote is hard to predict.
NPV is succeeding because its campaign against the Electoral College has been conducted largely behind the scenes while other issues have captured the nation’s attention. This author has had the opportunity to talk with several community leaders and talk radio hosts in recent weeks: A recurring theme of these discussions is the great difficulty in combating so many issues simultaneously and the feel of Alinsky and old-style Chicago politics generated by the situation.
The sheer number of battles to be waged is overwhelming. Yet lovers of our republic must stand up now and defend the Electoral College. Or it will be too late.
Tara Ross is the author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College
