In December 2000, more than a month after Election Day, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the certification of Florida’s 25 electoral votes for George W. Bush, ending one of the most contentious presidential elections in history. While the term “hanging chad” forever became a part of America’s vocabulary, secretaries of state from across the country will tell you recounts, accusations of “stolen elections” and voter fraud have occurred regularly throughout our history.
Fortunately, such angst-ridden debates rarely occur in presidential elections. However, a well-funded movement now gaining steam, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, is advocating for a change in the country’s voting laws that could make presidential elections subject to such crises every four years if it succeeds.
The NPV would allow state legislatures to cast their state’s Electoral College votes for the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how their states voted. In August, California joined the compact, giving it 49 percent of the 270 electoral votes it needs to take effect.
The compact must pass in states controlling the remaining electoral votes needed by July 2012 for the system to be in place for the November 2012 presidential election. NPV supporters incorrectly assume that such a system would lead to fairer elections and more states being represented in the process.
Rather, if the NPV compact takes hold, instead of making elections fairer, our nation will face more recounts, an explosion in voter fraud and a diminished role for nearly every state. It would create a system wherein presidential election outcomes would be decided by a few swing cities rather than swing states.
Currently, when a recount is conducted in one state, it only affects that state’s electoral votes. Under the NPV, the entire country’s results could hinge on a single vote in a single precinct in a single state.
Suddenly, a recount that should be resolved with little fanfare in Sheboygan, Wis., could become a current day version of Florida 2000 — on a nationwide basis.
Congress passed legislation in 2002 mandating provisional balloting in all areas of the country, and states have individual requirements for recounts.
So, it is not difficult to see how our nation could face a constitutional crisis with no president to swear in on inauguration day. Under NPV, at least six presidential elections would have resulted in recount scenarios: 2000, 1968, 1960, 1888, 1884 and 1880.
While voter fraud would become more likely in many new states, campaigning in those states would become less important than ever. If the presidential election were based on the popular vote, campaigning would boil down to national urban centers.
With 11 percent of the most populous states accounting for 56 percent of the population, the presidential election will essentially become a race for a dozen states with big cities.
Rather than spend any time campaigning in New Mexico, Republicans would try to lose California by only 2.9 million votes instead of 2.8 million, while Democrats would ignore Iowa in order to increase their vote tally in Houston.
Equally concerning is that under NPV it is conceivable that a candidate for president in a five-person field could win election with only 21 percent of the popular vote, far from a majority.
While those supporting NPV may claim it is more democratic, they are undemocratically circumventing the required constitutional amendment process established by our Founding Fathers, because they know it would never pass.
Americans are better served maintaining the critical role of the states in presidential elections. The NPV would end that role and make existing problems worse.
Ed Gillespie is chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee and was Counselor to President George W. Bush and chairman of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s campaign.”
Ed Gillespie is chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee and was Counselor to President George W. Bush and chairman of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s campaign.”
