The National Popular Vote Plan

As we'll discuss this week, the Electoral College system of selecting a President gives rise to the possibility that occurred in 2000: The candidate who wins the most popular vote nevertheless loses in the Electoral College. This has generated new interest in reforming or doing away with the Electoral College. However, because this requires a Constitutional amendment (2/3 of each house of Congress plus 3/4 of all states), such a reform is not likely.

However, a recent proposal, the National Popular Vote Plan, has gained momentum. Under this plan, states would enter into an agreement under which each state would agree to give all of its electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes, even if that candidate did not carry that particular state. Once enough states signed on to this plan to guarantee they could deliver a majority of electoral votes, this would ensure that the popular vote winner would also win the Electoral College vote, and thus be elected President.

Legislation to adopt this plan in California passed the legislature this year. The author of the bill gave these reasons for it:

With the current winner-take-all allocation of each state's electoral votes, candidates are forced to focus exclusively on a small number of 'battleground' states. Because California hasn't been one of the battleground states, we have largely been ignored by recent Presidential campaigns. Under the current system of electing the President, as long as California remains a solidly Democratic state, there is no reason for Presidential candidates of any party to pay attention to California voters. California will continue to be seen by Presidential candidates as nothing more than an ATM for their campaign coffers. AB 2948 enacts an interstate compact in which the member states agree to award their electoral votes to the Presidential ticket that receives the most popular votes nationwide. The compact would take effect only when the plan was enacted by states collectively possessing a majority of the electoral votes - thereby guaranteeing that the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide wins enough electoral votes to become President.

However, the bill was vetoed by the Governor. In his veto message, the Governor said:

I believe strongly in democracy and in honoring the will of the people. While this bill honors the will of the majority of people voting for the office of President of the United States across the country, it disregards the will of a majority of Californians.

I appreciate the intent of this measure to make California more relevant in the presidential campaign, but I cannot support doing it by giving all our electoral votes to the candidate that a majority of Californians did not support.

This is counter to the tradition of our great nation which honor states rights and the unique pride and identity of each state.

What do you think of this proposal? What are some of its ramifications? Is it a good idea or not?