House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones,
Jr. (R-North Reading) was recently asked to weigh in on the question of whether
the U.S. President should be elected by national popular vote, rather than the Electoral
College. This column ran in the Globe North section of the Boston Globe on
Sunday.
Altering something as important as the way we elect a
president should rightfully be done through a Constitutional amendment. The
Electoral College has served the country well since its inception. If we are to
make any changes to it — and jettisoning it ought not be one of those — we
should do so only after careful consideration.
National popular vote advocates have been trying to
circumvent this process by getting states to join a multi-state compact. Since
2007, 10 states and the District of Columbia have joined, pledging to award
their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who carries the national
popular vote. Together, they account for 165 electoral votes, 105 short of the
270 needed for the compact to be implemented.
When Massachusetts joined the movement in 2010,
proponents claimed it would make the state more relevant during presidential
elections. Choosing the president by national popular vote would not
necessarily increase Massachusetts’s clout during a presidential campaign. In
fact, an argument could be made that it would actually disenfranchise many
voters.
In his 2008 Cato Institute analysis, “A Critique of the
National Popular Vote Plan for Electing the President,” author John Samples
warned of such a scenario, noting that “[National popular vote] will encourage
presidential campaigns to focus their efforts in dense media markets where
costs per vote are lowest; many states now ignored by candidates will continue
to be ignored under NPV.”
There could be other unintended consequences for
Massachusetts. Let’s say Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and
Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. On Election Night 2016, Clinton could
carry Massachusetts by a wide margin, but if Trump wins the national vote he
would receive all of Massachusetts’ 11 electoral votes.
The United States is a geographically diverse country,
and the Electoral College reflects that by allocating two electoral votes to
each state, and the remaining electoral votes based on population. This helps
to ensure that all states – large and small – have a role in the process.
As an alternative to the national popular vote compact,
we should do what Nebraska and Maine do and award two electoral votes to the
popular vote winner, and our remaining electoral votes to the winner in each of
the state’s Congressional districts. Such a change could encourage more
competitive races without undermining the Electoral College and while
respecting our Constitutional process.
