Opposition to the National Popular Vote Compact
There is little respect for the Electoral College (EC). The League
opposes it and most voters want a direct popular vote. But is the
National Popular Vote Compact (NPV Compact) an appropriate way to
achieve that result?
Evaluating Fairness Voters supporting the
candidate who receives the majority of votes in their state want their
state's electors to support their choice. Adoption of the NPV Compact
may require a state elections official to direct its state's electors
to cast their ballots in support of a candidate who was not favored by
the voters of that state.
Passage of the NPV Compact will result in the emphasis of
presidential campaigns shifting from the battleground states to areas
of large concentrations of population. So, while some voters are
disenfranchised by the EC, others might be disenfranchised by the NPV
Compact. Because the Compact requires entry into a contract with other
states which binds state elections officials to direct electors to vote
in a certain way, regardless of the outcome of the election in their
state, states' rights are diminished.
In addition, one can question the advisability of a method that
bypasses the normal constitutional amendment process in this
manner.
Constitutional Issues
Many constitutional scholars argue that this plan will lead to
extensive litigation involving challenges to the NVP Compact on issues
such as the scope of constitutional powers, the Compact itself, the
need for congressional approval, the concerns of non-compacting states,
and constitutional protections of state interests and their role in
elections.
Mechanical Issues/Flaws The methods for
enforcement of this plan are unclear. Opponents question the power and
timing to withdraw from the Compact and the power to enforce
compliance.
Others express concern about an onslaught of lawsuits between
compacting and non-compacting states, as well as procedures in close
elections.
The plan, allowing the election of a president by a plurality of
votes, does not improve on the current system; neither the present
system nor the NPV Compact requires that the president be elected by a
majority.
Other Issues The Voting Rights Act
requires pre-clearance for legislative changes. This, too, has the
capacity to engender lawsuits to ensure compliance.
League Issues This proposal does nothing
to achieve the goal of uniform standards of voting. The NPV Compact is
effective when passed by states representing 270 electoral votes,
effectively negating the impact on presidential elections of the voters
in states which represent the other half of electoral votes. A system
which assures no voter disenfranchisement is a better way to assure
that every person's vote counts.
The League has long supported the abolition of the EC. Although the
NPV Compact purports to foster the same result, it creates additional
concerns. Amending the U.S. Constitution is a difficult process, and we
should seriously consider supporting the normal amendment procedures to
abolish the EC versus this specific "work-around."
To prepare for the consensus meeting, please read the
complete version of this paper (available at www.lwv.org) by the LWVUS National Popular
Voter Compact Study Committee.
© 2008 by the League of Women Voters of the United States
Related Files
Voter Ready Opposition Article (Word Document)
Voter Ready Opposition Article (PDF File)
|
