Don't look now, but a new effort to destroy the Electoral College is under way. As Ronald Reagan might say, "There they go again!" This newest anti-Electoral College effort calls itself the Campaign for the National Popular Vote. NPV supporters hope to convince a critical mass of states to enter into an interstate compact. Participating states would agree to allocate their entire slate of electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact would go into effect when states representing 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to its terms. At least in theory, the eleven most populous states could make this change on their own, without consulting the small states, because the largest states currently have 271 electoral votes among them. Yes, that's right. The Electoral College could essentially be eliminated, without the bother of a constitutional amendment. To date, a legislative committee in Louisiana, the Colorado state senate, and the California Assembly have approved this end-run around the Constitution. Representatives in other states, including New York, are considering NPV's legislation. Changing the system, NPV proponents argue, comports with basic common sense. The person who wins the most votes should be president. It's all very logical. If the logic is so clear-cut, then perhaps the rules of baseball should be reconsidered as well. The winner of the most World Series games should not be the champion. The team scoring the most runs throughout the course of seven games is clearly a better team. Or is it? Championship baseball teams must prove that they are the best overallteam. One strong pitcher, batter, or a home-field advantage should not solidify their win. The true championship team is the most well-rounded one. In the same way, presidential candidates must prove that they are good representatives for the nation as a whole. The American presidential election system, conducted democratically state-by-state, ensures that the new president is a good Americanpresident. Conducting elections by popular individual votes instead risks the possibility of presidents who primarily represent isolated regions, states, or special interest groups. Historically speaking, American presidential campaigns are won by those candidates who do the best job of building national coalitions of voters. Moderation and compromise are necessary prerequisites to victory due to the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes. Moreover, the current process works to uphold America's strong two-party system. In America, the impact of third party candidates is tempered. They may sometimes impact the election, as Ross Perot did in 1992, but they do not usually win. The process prevents extremist third party candidates from obtaining too much influence. Now, admittedly, the two-party system has its frustrating moments, but it also promotes stability. Consider the alternative: The constant specter of multi-candidate elections, fractured voting, run-offs, and recounts. Moderation and compromise become a thing of the past. With more candidates in play, extremist groups need fewer votes to sway an election. The Electoral College is often trashed as "unfair" and "undemocratic," but in reality, it is just misunderstood. The rules of the presidential election game have an important purpose, in much the same way that the rules of sporting events do. Voters and elected officials should educate themselves on the history and justifications for this essential constitutional protection before they casually—and foolishly—vote to do away with it altogether.
Tara Ross is the author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College | 
