Once again, Maine finds itself considering the foolish idea of implementing the so-called national popular vote – and doing so via a cumbersome, risky and likely unconstitutional route.

At its core, the idea is foolish because there is no such thing as the national popular vote; it’s a myth perpetuated by the media every four years, as I’ve explained here before. Until we have identical electoral laws in place all over the country, having a truly national presidential election is undemocratic and impossible. Moreover, implementing it through an interstate compact is an underhanded and possibly unconstitutional way to do it. The Electoral College isn’t some curious relic; it’s an effective way to elect a president in the second-largest democracy in the world. 

It’s reasonable to think that, for many of its opponents, the real problem with the Electoral College isn’t that it’s undemocratic, it’s that it’s more advantageous to Republicans than it is to Democrats. While two of the last four presidents have been elected without winning the unofficial national popular vote tally, they’ve both been Republicans. One suspects that, had the opposite occurred, many of the supporters of abandoning the Electoral College would instead be its biggest defenders. There’s just cause for that suspicion; supporters of the movement are mostly progressive activists, with a few token short-sighted Republicans they’ve managed to bring on board. The effort to ban Trump from the ballot for sedition – a specific federal crime for which he hasn’t even been indicted – is a similarly partisan effort dressed up with a thin veneer of bipartisanship. 

Unfortunately, both of these obviously partisan efforts – unthinkable in more ordinary times – have become more acceptable thanks to Trump’s behavior. His unwillingness to admit defeat in 2020 has led more people to consider extreme measures to prevent him from regaining power, without considering the far-reaching side effects.

If the national popular vote were implemented – either through an interstate compact or a legitimate constitutional amendment – we must pause to consider how the other states not involved would react. We’ve already seen, in two successive presidential elections, how willing many Americans are to believe an election is rigged simply because their candidate lost. (We mustn’t forget that, in 2016, many Democrats considered the election illegitimate due to supposed Russian interference.) That number is likely to rise again in 2024, regardless of who wins. How much worse would these divisions be if half the country considered the entire electoral system – not just the counting of votes – suspect, if not entirely illegitimate? What would supporters of the losing candidate do? 

Let’s take a moment to imagine that the two efforts, circumventing the Electoral College and barring Trump from the ballot, were successful.

Suddenly, we’d have an electoral system based on a supposed national popular vote where many states barred one of the two major candidates from the ballot. A state could even end up awarding its electoral votes to someone who wasn’t on their ballot. Now we’re describing an electoral system that makes it impossible to even determine the popular will; indeed, it would more closely resemble staged elections in Russia and Hong Kong than our existing system. 

When considering a change to fundamental rules, it’s vital to consider how your opponents would use it in the future. We’ve seen a failure to do this in Congress, when each party whittles down the powers of the minority every time they’re in power. Efforts to change electoral rules and common practices could also be utilized by either side for their own gains. If an interstate compact to award Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote is legitimate, wouldn’t a different kind of interstate compact be similarly legitimate? Couldn’t Republican states band together and agree to award their Electoral College votes in some other way? Similarly, if the effort to bar Trump from the ballot for sedition were successful, it could be wielded against other candidates for federal office. 

The best way to fight back against Trump’s brand of divisive politics isn’t to manipulate or change the rules, rather to embrace them. If you really want to prevent Trump or someone like him from gaining power, do so legitimately under our current rules. Don’t try to manipulate the system to ensure your victory. The former approach strengthens American democracy; the latter weakens it for future generations – regardless of who wins the next election.

Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be contacted at:
jwfossel@gmail.com
Twitter: @jimfossel

Copy the Story Link