Harvard Law Review, explains that “The flaws in the NPVC are numerous … with far greater consequences for the legitimacy of our presidential elections than what the nation witnessed in Bush v. Gore.”
Flaws such as: How would a nationwide recount be ordered or conducted if the national popular vote is close?
If you don’t think this could happen, you don’t know your history.
In 1960, JFK defeated Richard Nixon by a razor-thin margin of fewer than 113,000 votes. James A. Garfield beat Winfield Scott Hancock in 1880 by less than 1,900 votes. Grover Cleveland’s 1884 margin was less than 58,000 votes.
Since one state can’t order another state to recount its votes, Williams asks, “would not the absence of a uniform, nationwide recount call into question the legitimacy of the president so elected?”
And, what’s to keep a state from dropping out of the compact if its voters don’t like the national popular vote outcome? Would California or Massachusetts electors actually agree to elect a conservative Republican who won the national popular vote? They would have had to in 2024.
The NPVC tries to avoid this by “forbidding” states from withdrawing from the compact after July 20 in a presidential election year. But as Williams points out, “that limitation is unenforceable both as a legal and practical matter.”
The truth is that the Electoral College was a genius idea of the founders, which preserves federalism, helps protect against widespread voter fraud, and shields us from mob rule. (The Heritage Foundation has a good primer on the “Essential Electoral College” that is worth reading.)
Even those who support a national popular vote say the only legitimate way to make that happen is with a constitutional amendment, not an unconstitutional end run.
But since when has the left ever let the Constitution stand in its way?
‚— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
I & I Editorial Board
The Issues and Insights Editorial Board has decades of experience in journalism, commentary and public policy.
