I came across this story earlier this week about the Connecticut legislature basically telling their citizens that they don’t care about their votes.  OK, that’s not what the bill is titled and it’s not the headline of the story, but it is the effect of the legislation.

The story describes legislation passing the Connecticut Senate which would “commit its electoral votes to whichever U.S. presidential candidate wins the nation’s popular vote”.  The writer correctly describes this as part of a push to change how we elect our president.  What the article does not describe is why the president is elected this way or the consequences of a minority of the states attempting to change the Constitution without actually changing it.

What these States are doing IS Constitutional

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2

The Constitution clearly states that the electors are chosen in a manner determined by the State’s legislature.  Most States choose their electors based on a popular vote of the citizens of that State.  Some states commit all of the electors to whomever wins that popular vote, others allocate them proportionally.  In short, each state currently commits their votes for president based on the expressed will of that state’s citizens.

Based on his statement, Governor Malloy seems to think the only way for a vote to count equally is if it is cast nationally.  Does he really think that when the citizens of his state, the same ones that voted him into office, tell their state to vote a certain way, they should be ignored if the rest of the country chooses someone else?  How is that insuring that “[t]he vote of every American citizen should count equally”?

So what these states are doing may be within the letter of the Constitution, but does it really follow the intentions of our Founding Fathers?  Does it honor the wishes of the citizens of these states?

This movement shows a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution and why we elect the President the way we do

Is it really a surprise, with the state of civics education nowadays, that a large percentage of Americans don’t understand the most basic structures of our federal government?  Apparently an understanding of the Constitution is not a requirement for holding elected office or for reporting on Constitutional matters.

Lets look at a couple of the misunderstandings that seem to be driving this movement.

The people don’t elect the President, the States do

I bet most of you think that when you go to the ballot box every four years you’re voting for President.  If you look at your ballot closely (and you have to look closely because it’s usually in VERY small print), what you’re actually voting for are electors for the candidates.  Remember Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2?  Electors are appointed in a manner the state legislature decides.  For over 200 years, the manner every state used to determine how to appoint electors involved a popular election of the citizens of the state.

You may ask “why would the states choose the president instead of the people?”  A very good question and the answer is simple, because the president’s primary job is to represent the states in foreign affairs.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,

he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,

Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 1

Notice how the president’s powers to make treaties or appoint officials require the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate.  If we had been taught about the Constitution we should immediately recognize that Senators were originally chosen by their state’s legislature; their job was to represent the states in the federal government.  And since the President cannot execute the majority of his powers without the advice and consent of the senate, he basically works for the states.  We think of the president as a representative of the people, but the job was designed to represent the states.  This misunderstanding not only causes some of the confusion in Washington, but apparently in the states as well.

There is no national popular election for President

The vote in the Connecticut legislature is for a bill to support an interstate compact called “The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.”  There’s just one problem, there is no national popular vote for president.  When we talked about the ballot I showed you that you do not vote for president but for electors for a candidate.  Yes, there is a popular vote in each state, but if the national populous does not vote for the president, how can there be a national popular vote?  I explain why we elect the president this way in my article Do you know why the U.S. has an Electoral College?.

This movement shows a complete disregard for the will of the people of the states

As I mentioned earlier, governor Mallory says this bill is about every Americans’ vote counting.  But what about the votes of the people of Connecticut?  Does their will only matter when it agrees with everyone else’s?  Connecticut is a relatively small state; should it be ignored in favor of more populous states?  While the western part of the state is near New York City, should the rural areas be ignored in favor of densely populated urban areas?  Governor Mallory complains the smaller states have an oversized influence on presidential elections, but the number of electors each state has is based largely on their population (the number of representatives plus senators).  By making the presidential election effectively a popular vote, isn’t Governor Mallory proposing that large cities should have an oversized influence on the election?

This movement will only further divide this nation

This nation is currently highly polarized.  How do you think people will react if their votes for presidential electors are ignored in favor of a “national popular vote”?  There are already people from both parties who do not accept the results of an election because their candidate didn’t win.

In addition to Connecticut, the other states in this compact lean HEAVILY democratic in their voting.  Could it be that their candidate not winning is a major driving force behind this push?  Is this what happens when these reliable democratic voters realized their votes went for a republican?  Or when a republican wins the electoral college except for these states discounting the votes of their own citizens?

I understand the desire to make sure everyone’s vote counts, but this is not the way to do it.  If they think the system is wrong, use the tools in the Constitution to change it.  Be up front with the American people, tell them what you want to change and why.  Then listen to the American peoples’ answer.  If your suggestion has merit it will succeed, but getting your way by subverting the Constitution only degrades our republic and sacrifices its long-term stability for a short-term gain.  Supporters may think they are healing the rift, but in fact they are setting us up for an even worse fight.