Nolan Reichl’s March 18 OpEd supporting LD 816 illustrates the fundamental errors of those who seek to effectively abolish the Electoral College through adoption of the “national popular vote.” Reichl is a colleague and an excellent lawyer, but his argument is wrong.
His central theme is that states are just bigger versions of water districts — arbitrary “subdivisions” of the national government that can and should be disposed of if they stand in the way of direct democracy. This political theory rests on the proposition that our government exists solely to reflect the wishes of the majority of the population. In essence, he envisions a unified central government and an undifferentiated mass of individuals, with the government immediately and directly reflecting the whims of transient majorities. In his words, this is the “only coherent philosophy of governance.”
With sincere respect, I beg to differ. States are not mere “subdivisions” of a national government, nor was our system of government designed to be a direct democracy. These two basic principles should not be discarded as relics of an archaic system, for they serve real and valuable interests: ensuring that all voices and interests are heard, and providing a check on the exercise of arbitrary power.
Rather than mere administrative subdivisions of the nation, states are essential aspects of our political, legal and civic life. In a very real way, individuals living in different regions of the country — that is, in different states — have different needs and different interests. Just as there are groups of individuals that might share interests because they are of a particular race or a particular economic class, there are groups who reflect particular regional interests. Anyone who has traveled our country, from Delaware to Idaho or Aroostook County to Miami-Dade County, understands these real cultural differences.
The existence of states, and the Electoral College, guarantee that presidential contenders must appeal to as broad a regional constituency as possible, in addition to as broad a constituency as possible among other groups, rather than focusing solely on constituencies from narrow regions.
Further, our (small “r”) republican system — as opposed to a purely (again, small “d”) democratic system — protects minority groups, including individuals living in the smallest, and often poorest, states. By balancing the federal government against state governments, a republic provides a check on mob rule, and the threat such rule presents to minorities of all kinds — religious, political ethnic, or anything else.
In the context of the Electoral College, our republican government precludes individuals living in densely populated, wealthy regions from trampling over the interests of more impoverished rural areas with hardly a second thought. The alternative to this arrangement is a feeling of profound disenfranchisement — a feeling akin to serfdom — on the part of those who would otherwise have absolutely no chance to make their voices heard.
At bottom, though I would not presume to ascribe this view to Reichl, the push to adopt the national popular vote betrays a worrisome undercurrent in our political climate. A not insubstantial portion of the country is now of the view that, if one’s preferred political team loses, the solution is to change the rules. This is a tried and true solution for losers of childhood backyard games everywhere, but, as those childhood games illustrate, it is a poor way to maintain the stability that has been an under-appreciated hallmark of our great country.
Yet we have repeatedly seen this temptation come to the fore in recent days: adopting ranked-choice voting, packing the Supreme Court and, now, abolishing the Electoral College. Our system of government should not be so lightly toyed with, for chasing after short-term political gain threatens to magnify political strife and anger. Just imagine waiting for a national popular vote recount.
The Legislature should reject the ill-conceived notions behind the national popular vote and LD 816.
Joshua Dunlap is a lawyer who resides in Scarborough.