Figured I’d just turn this into a post as I was late to NPV debate previously. Sure the House already passed it but here goes anyway:
I agree with Rep. Brownsberger. NPV sounds good but isn’t.
He obviously has given this a helluva lot of thought and considered all the angles. My reasons for opposing NPV however are different to his.
While I am attracted in principle to one-person one-vote, I tend to think that people who think the NPV system will lead to better elections are deluding themselves. When I picture a full on national election, I picture a massive media campaign fuelled by ever growing campaign money, driving the worst excesses of our current system to even greater levels. Candidates would fight the election over the air ways as no single area, constituency or district matters more than any others. It becomes lowest common denominator politics.
It would change the entire nature of presidential campaigns, would diminish the standing of minority groups, who have deeper concentrations in certain states (many of which swing) and would distance the candidates from local issues that often matter most to people.
I like when candidates have to show up in different places to pull together an EC majority. It forces them to have a ground game, be accessible – something that would be impossible across the country as a whole. Maybe Mass gets overlooked a tad, but who know in 50 years whether that will be the case. And with NPV I am not convinced they would show up here anymore than they do now.
We’re a massive and diverse country and that diversity is reflected, however imperfectly, in the diverse nature of our regions and states. 310 million and growing. I think only India is a larger democratic nation and they use a parliamentary system that picks its Govt based on who wins the most districts. The entails regional variety and politics being relevant to people in a diverse country. We have never been and today should not be a strictly majoritarian democracy when it comes to electing our president.
I don’t think if 101 million people voted for the Republican and 100 million voted for our candidate I’d feel any better than if our guy/gal lost Ohio and the EC but won the popular vote.
And I think NPV is really wrongheaded to impose while operating under an EC system. Given that campaigns are run state-by-state judging who wins and who loses by the popular vote makes no sense whatsoever. The race would be fought differently under different systems. Maybe if every state did it, but that is not going to be the case with NPV given states can pull out, etc.. If you want to change the system try to do it properly through a constitutional amendment. I know that would be really difficult, but NPV commits our state to committing electors based on a flawed conclusion. Of if you want more reflective votes, dole em out by percentage of state votes or by congressional district.
As a Mass resident, I also don’t like the idea of our state’s electors picking someone that our voters didn’t prefer. Why should a candidate that get’s rocked in Mass get all our votes. I am certain that I’d be pissed off if Mass gave its votes to a Republican it didn’t choose because they won the national vote and in doing so denied an EC victory to the candidate that won the state election.
I know NPV sounds like a simple solution. But politics is never so simple. Be careful what you wish for. After Bush v Gore I can hear the sentiment. But our democracy is old and resilient for a reason. It can always use reform and sometimes I wish it could change faster. We may think Massachusetts is ignored now because its blue bias, but that may not always be the case. I think we could be making a big mistake here. How about a study committee?
