Letter: National Popular Vote Will Diminish the Voice of Low-Population States

To the editor,

The Rhode Island Senate recently approved a bill that legally would join Rhode Island with other states in an interstate compact to elect the president of the United States by a National Popular Vote (NPV).  

Proponents of NPV argue that their new electoral process would ensure a fair election in that each vote in every state would count in a presidential election.  If every vote matters, presidential candidates would seek to appeal to voters in every state across the nation, making elections about every voter instead of focusing on swing state contests.

I disagree.  As such, I voted to oppose NPV because I believe that NPV, if adopted, would significantly unfairly diminish the voice of small or low populated states in presidential elections, greatly amplify the voice of largely populated states and urban centers; and lead to a possible nightmare recount scenario that would make the 2000 presidential election look like child's play. 

Under the United States Constitution state legislatures are authorized to set up an election process to appoint special voters or "electors" who will cast their votes for president on behalf on the states they represent.  When a presidential candidate receives a majority of voters in a given state [or district], that candidate sweeps all of the state's [or district's] electoral votes. Of course, every vote counts toward this majority vote.  The number of electoral votes that a state receives is predicated on an agreement hammered out by delegates of the various sovereign states at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 known as the Great Compromise.  The Great Compromise was a hard-won agreement between highly populated [big] states and low populated [small] states as to how much representation each state should receive in Congress.  Per this agreement, a bicameral Congress was created wherein small states would enjoy equal representation in the Senate.  To appease the big states, representation in the House of Representatives would be based proportionately on a state's population.  Similarly, the framers of the Constitution believed that it would also be reasonable and appropriate to base the number of electoral votes a state receives on the sum of Representatives and Senators each state has in Congress. 

Rhode Island has four (4) electoral votes since it has two (2) Representatives and two (2) Senators.  If the NPV were adopted the voice of the people of RI, already small, would be significantly diminished.  Currently, Rhode Islanders' voice in the presidential election is roughly equivalent to 1 person in a room full of 135 people (538 electoral votes divided by (4) four).  Under the proposed NPV, the number of people in that same room would increase to 316 while RI would still only have 1 person in the same room (US population is 316 million divided by RI's 1 million voters).  While RI could lose an electoral vote in the next census, our electoral vote would never be fewer than (3) three.  However, if the population of RI does not keep pace with the population of other states (which is very likely), the voice of the people would progressively become smaller and eventually drown out over time.

While presidential candidates do spend inordinate amounts of time in so-called swing states, they do need to appeal to the interests of entire states as a whole.  That means rural, suburban and urban interests must all be taken into account when speaking to the voters in these or any state that presidential candidates visit.  The proposed NPV proposal, by contrast, would favor urban areas and highly populated states.  This would likely focus presidential candidates predominantly on big states and densely populated urban regions.  Consequently, in an attempt to curry favor with these largely urban voters, presidential candidates would likely skew their campaign issues [and subsequent agendas] to suit the interests of this demographic. 

This focus on densely populated states and regions would come at the expense of the small states as well as undermine the collective interests of the nation as a whole producing a new set of potentially divisive fault lines in the American political landscape.  Not surprisingly, many skeptics of the NPV allege that this scheme would benefit Democratic candidates for president as urban voters tend to vote for the Democratic ticket.  This advantage would likely increase as projected demographic shifts take hold.  Even as a Democrat, I find the prospect of politically skewed and less competitive presidential races troubling.

Many proponents of NPV point to the Bush versus Gore 2000 election as a rationale for their support of the National Popular Vote.  After all, if there had been a popular vote in 2000, Vice President Gore would have won the presidential election by some half a million votes!  While rare, winning the popular vote does not guarantee that a candidate automatically wins the electoral vote due to the electoral vote weighting embodied in the Great Compromise.  Since people do not understand this fact, they assume that the Electoral College is unfair.  While it may have been regrettable for supporters of Al Gore that he lost the presidential election, the more enduring problems that surfaced during the 2000 presidential election was Florida's faulty voting system, [mis]management of the polls and a sordid procedure for voter recounts. 

Now, imagine for a moment if the NPV system were adopted.  Since every vote is counted, the need for accuracy in elections in each and every state would be paramount because even small discrepancies or errors in voter tallies in the various states could total the difference between two presidential candidates for president in a competitive race.  In a close presidential race, as in 2000, a challenger could rightfully demand a recount in each and every state in the union in search for pockets of votes that could add up to an electoral victory.  Such a recount process could easily precipitate a national crisis and undermine the public's faith in the eventual president!

Lastly, there is a question here of process.  Why are the supporters of NPV seeking to effectively amend-out the Electoral College through the back door of an apparent Constitutional loophole, namely an interstate compact instead of pursuing a Constitutional amendment?  I suppose the practical answer is that it is much easier,  both in time and effort, to win the approval of only a smaller number of states' legislatures as opposed to 3/4 of states' legislatures along with a 2/3 vote of Congress as required by ARTICLE V of the US Constitution. 

For the aforementioned reasons, I will continue to oppose the National Popular Vote and respectfully ask my colleagues in government to do the same.

Sincerely, 

James C. Sheehan

Senator – District 36

Narragansett, North Kingstown

Chair, Senate Committee on Government Oversight