© 2009 by Michael Swickard, Ph.D.
There was an interesting debate and vote in the New Mexico House of Representatives this week. Lawmakers approved House Bill 383, a proposal that would effectively eliminate the Electoral College without actually doing so constitutionally. We are close to being a nation without a constitution and some people think that is fine.
I can see both sides of the argument on the Electoral College, and my tendency is to leave things the way they have been and suffer the consequences. The “one person equals all others” argument is valid; the only sticking point is that small states like New Mexico disappear if there is no Electoral College.
Our founding leaders established the Electoral College after much debate centering on the question: Will we be a representative republic or a democracy? If a democracy, then all people vote on all government questions including the election of the president, and the most votes wins. In a representative republic, the people elect electors who then vote on all of the questions of government, including the election of the president.
As we have seen occasionally in the past, the electors who select the president have chosen someone who did not get the most popular votes. The question resembles the difference in golf between regular tournament and match play. In match play each hole is won or lost and the total holes won selects the winner, whereas in tournament, it is simply who hits the ball the least number of times. Match play can be won by someone who did not have the fewest strokes.
Traditionally, the method of changing the constitution is that an amendment must get a two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress and be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The 39th state legislature to ratify the amendment enables it.
This very cumbersome method has ensured that only the most supported changes in our constitution are made. And even then we had to repeal one amendment when the unseen consequences were too onerous to accept.
Why not go for the constitutional amendment?
Unlike a real constitutional amendment dispatching the Electoral College, the National Popular Vote proposal says that all states that embrace this measure agree to manipulate the electors from their state to reflect the national popular vote rather than the state vote. So even if one candidate won New Mexico, the electors would be forced to vote for the other candidate because that candidate got more of the entire vote.
So why not just go for the constitutional amendment? Because there is fear that not enough states will ratify it, like what happened with the Equal Rights Amendment. It was an act that the majority of people supported but could not get enough state legislatures to embrace.
Lately, there has been a new interpretation of our Constitution that says it does not mean what it says, it means whatever someone says it means either through interpretation or by work-arounds. If it says “Congress shall make no laws…” that actually means Congress shall make laws for the good of the people regardless of the constitution. Additionally, we will work around rather than change the constitution because it is too difficult.
The real effect to us in flyover country is that we in New Mexico will disappear. Four states — California, Texas, New York and Florida — have around 100 million people. California alone is bigger than the bottom 20 states in population. All campaign money and appearances will converge entirely on the top 12 states in population.
Likewise, the overwhelming majority of “pork” will go to those 12 states with the top four states getting the most. It is a shift in power beyond what our leaders in Santa Fe can imagine.
Still, my only real concern is that, if we are to do this, let us amend the constitution rather than work around it. Regardless of the stated benefit, we should never work around our constitution.
Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.