Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Editorial: Connecticut should join the National Popular Vote compact

Published: Monday, March 11, 2013

Updated: Sunday, March 10, 2013 21:03

DC Logo

The Daily Campus

Some Americans will tell you that their one vote doesn’t matter. While we disagree, they do have a point. Technically speaking, it’s members of the Electoral College – not the voting public – who actually choose the president. And since most states grant their electors on a winner-take-all basis, most voters can know with near certainty which candidate their state’s electors will go to.

This is just one of the many problems with the Electoral College. However, as it’s enshrined in the Constitution, most people take its existence as an unavoidable part of American presidential elections. Yet there is a small but growing movement to change this system and switch to selecting the president by a national popular vote. A bill to do just that has been introduced in the Connecticut General Assembly and we fully support its passage.

The bill, SB 432, would not single-handedly fix the Electoral College. Rather, it would have Connecticut join the National Popular Vote Compact, an agreement between states to give all of their electors to whoever wins the most votes nationwide. This is allowed by the Constitution, which grants states the ability to decide how to distribute their own electors. The agreement would not immediately take effect and would only kick in once enough states join to decide the election. Nine states have already signed on, for a total of 132 electors – nearly halfway to the 270 required to obtain a majority.

We actually feel that this solution is preferable to changing the US Constitution, since it would be much easier to reverse. If changing to a national popular vote turns out to have unforeseen consequences, individual states could back out of the agreement and switch back to the old method (or an entirely new one). Changing the Constitution, on the other hand, would require another arduous amendment process that could take many years.

One of the most obvious reasons for the change is to avoid electing a president who lost the popular vote, which has happened four times in America’s history, most recently in 2000. However, a national popular vote would have many other positive effects. Currently, presidential candidates focus their campaigns on swing states, completely ignoring safe states like California, Texas, or Connecticut. This not only means that they make more campaign stops in those states, but that their policy stances are actually geared towards voters in these hotly contested areas. It’s also been shown that swing states receive a disproportionate amount of federal funding, perhaps an attempt by incumbent politicians to sway their voters in future elections.

Connecticut voters recognize the problems with the Electoral College and are demanding change. In a 2009 poll by Public Policy Polling, 74 percent of Connecticut voters stated that the president should be chosen by the national popular vote, not the Electoral College. It’s difficult to get majority support for any issue, so when nearly three-quarters of the voting public supports a change, politicians should listen.

A similar bill was passed by the House of Representatives in 2009, but never reached a vote in the Senate. Let’s not let that happen again. If enough citizens reach out to their legislators, this can become law this year, and we will be one step closer to reforming the ineffective Electoral College.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

1 comments Log in to Comment

Luther Weeks
Mon Mar 11 2013 08:11
Unfortunately, like DDT and Nuclear power the National Popular Vote Agreement has attractive benefits, but many risks that are largely ignored. Cobbling the National Popular Vote on an already flawed system adds to the risks and increases the chances of close elections ending in the Supreme Court or in Congress, Consider:
- There is no official national popular vote number available in time for when electors must be designated. Electors are chosen before states are required to send in their Certificates of Attainment
- There is no national audit or recount law. About half of states have audits and about half recount, but recounts are based on close vote counts in each state, there is no law or body to call for a national recount.
- Given the state by state election system, unlike today, fraud or error in each state can change the national result
- If the Compact approach is taken the flawed system will remain, with worse effects.There are many reasons candidates and citizens could sue and delay results past required dates based on officials using incorrect, unverified, or different sets of numbers.
- Finally unlike other democracies that have a popular vote, all votes are not equal, state to state. The franchise is different, the ease of voting is different, and there is voter suppression.
To do the NPV with integrity, as a prerequisite, we need a system where every vote and voter is equal, is counted in a way we can trust, with national audits and recounts etc.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In