Day -69: On the Electoral College, Moral Obligations of Electors and States’ Creativity in Overriding the College
While president-elect Trump (*shudder*) continues to float Cabinet positions for members of the Swamp he promised to drain, an issue we’re likely to focus on often, we’ll tackle the compelling issue of how to avoid situations where the popular vote and Electoral College are split in the future.
First, we’ve seen enough non-Trump voters (and potentially non-anyone voters) say silly things like “the Electoral College has a moral obligation to reject Trump.” We loathe Trump and can’t defend numerous positions and statements he has made over the past two years and, well, his entire life. But the nation voted, we have our rules and Trump won in a fair election. Under the current system, the Electoral College shouldn’t overrule the will of the voters in their states, simple as that. Democrats would scream if the shoe was on the other foot, and Republicans would be right to scream if this became a reality.
There are a few mechanisms to bypass the Electoral College system in the future: a constitutional amendment (unlikely since, in addition to other things, it would take at least 38 out of 50 states to agree), or a national compact, which the Baltimore Sun excellently summarizes:
Ten states plus Washington, D.C., have enacted legislation that could lead to a system that leaves the Electoral College intact but ensures that it deliver the presidency to the popular vote winner. This national compact stipulates that as soon as states comprising a majority of the Electoral College — 270 votes — sign on, each will award its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The Constitution allows states to allocate their electors as they choose — the winner-take-all system is not in the Constitution, and Maine and Nebraska have already abandoned it, choosing to split their electoral votes based on who wins in each congressional district.
In other words, if Ohio was to join the compact, no matter the vote split in Ohio, the Ohio’s 18 electoral votes would be bound to cast their votes for the candidate who received the highest vote total nationwide. This essentially, and legally, bypasses the electoral college. Candidates would be disincentive from visiting only swing states, compact members or not. Instead, there’d be focus on large population centers throughout the country. Though targeted outreach may be more difficult, a rural vote in Wyoming is just as valuable as a suburban vote in Pennsylvania. And while candidates would be more challenged in getting their message to more places across the country, isn’t that sort of the point of an election: reaching all Americans, not just the 50 million in swing states?
While the current compact members make up mostly blue states, certain bright red states may have reasons to get involved, too. Swing states traditionally get higher proportions of attention, aid, grant money, waivers, etc. So while a Republican president may align with the conservative values of a red, non-swing state better, that offers no tangible, financial benefit to the state, especially for a first term President that is interested in keeping swing state voters happy for a potential reelection campaign.
The compact’s members currently control a combined 165 electoral votes, or over 60% of the 270 votes necessary to elect a president based on the popular vote.
So while the Electoral College shouldn’t forego the rules in place now, the rules can be re-examined in creative ways. Lobby your state to get involved in the compact if this something you believe in.
-69 days in, 1530 to go.
Follow us on Twitter @ TrumpTimer
