I read Jim Fossel’s column on the Electoral College. He writes to complain about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which has already been enacted into law in 16 US states. The Compact would lead to the president being elected based on the national popular vote instead of being chosen by a sum of state electoral votes. This change would guarantee that each American’s vote would count equally toward the election of the president. People who want to learn more about the Compact can find information here: www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
Instead of acknowledging the widespread support this Compact has already gathered in states across our country, Fossel writes scornfully that this Compact represents an idea that “scores of people actually take seriously.” He goes on to complain that the United States cannot elect a president based on the national popular vote because, he says, “every state counts votes differently – indeed, sometimes these counting standards vary within the state depending on the county, municipality, or even ward.” Yet he does not seem to have any objection to the idea of assigning electoral votes based on those varied methods of counting.
Reading his column about how “undemocratic” it would be to have a national standard of one person, one vote makes me wonder why he really feels that way. I would be shocked — shocked! — if his real objection to a national popular vote is a different one than he states. In modern times, two Republicans (George W. Bush and Donald Trump), and no Democrats, have been elected to the presidency based on the Electoral College while they lost the popular vote. Thus these two Republicans became president even though a majority of American voters voted for their opponents.
That couldn’t influence Fossel’s distaste for a national popular vote for president. Or could it?
Stan Davis
Wayne
Send questions/comments to the editors.
