Four times since the framers met in Philadelphia in 1787, the presidency has gone to the candidate on the losing end of the popular vote. The republic still stands.
That�s hardly a compelling argument for leaving things as they are. The Electoral College less than perfectly reflects the will of the people, and the threat of the �faithless elector� who tips an election the way his partisan bias dictates is real, if remote. Both threats would vanish if the election automatically went to the candidate for whom most registered voters pulled the lever.
This is the point at which the conversation normally would turn to amending the federal Constitution to abolish the Electoral College. But the state Senate has just passed a bill that would achieve a comparable effect by simple statute.
The bill provides that, if enough states join in to command a majority in the Electoral College, all of North Carolina�s electoral votes will be awarded to the winner of the popular vote � not the statewide winner, but the one who wins nationwide. More than 40 states are already looking at substantially the same bill.
If it works as planned, the problem goes away, with no violence done to the Constitution.
Something else happens, too. North Carolina will less often find itself in political obscurity when the nation chooses its top leader.
During the 2000 election, one analyst noted that the candidates were focusing most of their time and effort on 11 swing states. Ironically, only three of those had more electoral votes than North Carolina, which was not one of the 11. If candidates understand that they have a real shot at our 15 electoral votes right up until the polls close on that fateful Tuesday in November, we are unlikely to be shrugged off or taken for granted again.
The arguments against it are no stronger than those for retaining the Electoral College in all its supreme majesty: (1) it�s different; and (2) it means that North Carolina could end up giving its 15 votes to someone not favored by the majority of Tar Heel voters. The first argument lacks heft. The second would make perfect sense, but only if one could ignore the fact that presidential elections are held to enable individual Americans to put someone in the White House, not merely to express each state�s collective pique or pleasure.
This is worth a try � for the sake of simplicity and fairness, and in the interest of raising our state�s political profile.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.