Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Randy Brock who represents the Franklin District in the Vermont State Senate. He is a former State Auditor.
Proponents of the National Popular Vote claim that 73 percent of Vermonters favor it. But, Vermonters haven’t been asked the right questions. The questions should be:
- Do you favor having the value of your vote for president cut in half?
- Do you favor having your vote for president cast for someone who was rejected by Vermonters?
- Do you favor making an end run around the Constitution because you think you’ve found a loophole that lets you get away with it?
Just a few short weeks ago, 180 members of the General Assembly stood and took a solemn oath never to vote for any bill that lessens citizens’ rights and privileges under Vermont’s Constitution. But today, despite that oath, legislators are poised to pass a piece of legislation that will do just that.
The bill is the so-called National Popular Vote. Its purpose is to ensure that the winner of the popular vote is elected president of the United States. It’s designed to address situations like the Bush-Gore election of 2000, when the winner of the popular vote lost.
Here’s how it would work: Vermont would enter into an interstate compact with other states that have adopted the NPV. Once there were enough states in the compact to represent the majority of the Electoral College, all of the compact states would cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The NPV winner would thus automatically win the Electoral College and the presidency.
At first blush, the goal of the NPV might seem reasonable, but there are three major problems:
- NPV devalues Vermonters’ votes: The framers of the Constitution recognized the need to balance the urban and the rural, big states and small states, the strong and the weak. The elegant design of the Electoral College was part of that balance. Vermont has three electoral votes (one for each US Senator and member of Congress). There are a total of 538 electoral votes and 270 are needed to win. That means that Vermont represents about .6 percent of the Electoral College. But Vermont has only about .3 percent of the nation’s voters. Thus, today Vermont’s votes are worth twice what they would be should NPV become law. Adopting NPV is great for New Jersey, Massachusetts and Michigan. It’s bad for Vermont, Wyoming and Alaska.
- NPV would make Vermont’s electors vote for candidates we rejected: If NPV had been in effect throughout Vermont’s history, Vermont’s electoral votes would have been cast for someone we did not vote for in 19 of the 55 presidential elections since Vermont joined the Union. In other words, in 35 percent of presidential elections, under NPV our votes would have gone to someone the majority of our voters rejected at the polls. Everyone remembers Bush vs. Gore in 2000. But, there were three other elections in which the winner of the national popular vote lost, and in every one of these cases, Vermont voters were on the side of the Electoral College.
- NPV raises Constitutional concerns: Amending the Constitution is a daunting prospect. It requires a two-thirds majority vote in both Houses of Congress and approval by three-quarters of the states. NPV supporters believe they have found a loophole that circumvents the amendment process. The compact is based on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Under this theory, like school yard bullies, as few as the 11 biggest states — not three-quarters of the states — could effectively amend the Constitution, and small states like Vermont could just go pound sand. A compact has never before been used to address a fundamental Constitutional issue such as voting. Perhaps there’s a reason why.
