At a time when Americans feel more divided than ever, influential members of the Democratic Party seek to undermine one of the Constitution’s greatest provisions assuring national unity: They want to abolish the Electoral College. Although many see the institution as a throwback to premodern times, the Electoral College still accomplishes the Founding Fathers’ will of seeing that people of all states have their interests represented in their government. 

The most recent attempt to undermine the Constitution came from Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, who said, “I think all of us know, the Electoral College needs to go.” Over the years, nearly every prominent Democrat, including Hillary Clinton, has called for the presential election to be determined by a national popular vote. But doing so would undermine national unity, eliminate voters’ confidence in election outcomes, and drown small (and, not coincidentally, socially conservative) states’ votes in a sea of blue.

The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College, in part, to ensure small states like Rhode Island did not end up subject to the whim of a few large states, such as Virginia and Pennsylvania. They made America a constitutional republic, which views individuals’ rights as individual, God-given, and unalienable and forbids the government from passing any law denying a person these rights, regardless of how popular the motion might be. A democracy, on the other hand, says a majority — 50% plus one — can strip a 49% minority of all its rights. The Founding Fathers “feared majority tyranny,” said Michael Maibach, distinguished fellow for Save Our States, on “Washington Watch” last Thursday. “Every state has two senators for a reason. That was the Connecticut Compromise, so that they would have two electors, no matter” its population.

The Electoral College reflected the Founders’ aim to protect minority rights and assure diversity in the national government. Presidential candidates would have to go beyond courting voters in large population areas and truly represent the interests of all to be elected. In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote (Federalist No. 68), “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.”

The Founders understood, even two centuries ago, Americans differ greatly from one region to another. These divisions have only grown in the last 235 years. The Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Survey showed blue states such as California and Colorado have a diametrically opposed view of abortion from Kentucky, West Virginia, and Alabama. Earlier this year, the liberal Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) reported:

• A 33% difference between Massachusetts and the most faithful states (Utah and Idaho) on pro-life protections for innocent, unborn children.
• A 31% difference between the most secular state (Massachusetts) and the most faithful state (Mississippi) on support for same-sex “marriage.”
• A 29% difference between the most radical state (Massachusetts) and the most faithful state (West Virginia) on religious business owners’ right to live out their faith in the workplace.

While the Electoral College gives these smaller, more conservative states a voice in selecting a president, the national popular vote would bury their voice beneath a torrent of city voters. “Nine of our states have 50% of our people,” Maibach noted. “Los Angeles County has more people than 41 of our states, and New York City has more people than 39 of our states.”

Increasingly, these blue states seek to impose their will on the rest of America by doing an end-run around the Constitution. Since 2006, 17 states and the District of Columbia, controlling 209 of the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency, have enacted the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV). The NPV states that, regardless of how state voters cast their ballots, the state will instruct its presidential electors to vote for whichever candidate won the national popular vote.

This is a problem for numerous reasons. First, the U.S. government does not determine a national popular vote; each state calculates its popular vote total. NPV states would instruct electors to vote for the winner “I guess as tabulated by CNN or CBS or some other news organization,” said Maibach. Second, should the government come up with a way to calculate the national popular vote, every election could turn into the 2000 election — but instead recounts would multiply from one state to all 50, with all the penchant for mischief we have seen in recent elections.

The NPV would deny people the right to select their own rulers, which legal scholars say would render it unconstitutional. In effect, it is a constitutional amendment without taking the form of a constitutional amendment. Additionally, denying citizens the ability to select their own state’s electors would violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, according to Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute. Thomas Jipping of the Heritage Foundation holds that the NPV violates the Constitution’s Compact Clause, regulating state compacts that would harm other states’ interests.

A national popular vote would violate the Presidential Elections Clause of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, writes Norman R. Williams of Willamette Law School, because “[n]ot only did the framers of the Constitution expressly reject the idea of a direct, popular election for President, but also not one state either in the wake of ratification or at any time thereafter has ever sought to appoint its presidential electors on the basis of votes cast outside the state,” Still others believe a national popular vote runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s promise, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (Article IV, Section 3).

A national popular vote, in effect, tells state voters their will does not matter. Imagine the first governor to go on television and say that although the majority of his constituents voted for one candidate, the state would cast its electoral votes for the other candidate. Delaware or Maine would be letting Los Angeles County or Chicago override the will of their people.

The NPV also ignores the American System, in which some areas specialize in urban manufacturing (or did), while others cede vast areas of their state to agriculture. Rural states naturally have lower population density in the national interest. “Most of our farmers would feel like serfs if they if they were feeding the cities, but only the cities rule,” said Maibach. “And the founders never wanted to have that.”

That NPV Compact overrides the rights of the people in another way. For years, red parts of blue states have threatened to break off and form their own states. Northern California, dating to the 1941 proclamation of the State of Jefferson. Eastern Oregon counties want to join Greater Idaho. But their moves toward independence would see their electoral votes wiped out by a national popular vote.

Not only would abolishing the Electoral College create mob rule, wipe out the voice of more conservative voters in rural areas, and put the government into the hands of big cities — it could see the U.S. government selected by illegal aliens. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), or “Motor-Voter Law,” prevents states from erecting meaningful barriers to illegal immigrants and other ineligible residents from registering to vote. Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade (D) announced in September the state may have registered 1,259 non-citizens to vote. In 2022, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) “accidentally” mailed voter registration information to 31,000 non-citizens. Contrary to media “fact-checkers,” the threat of illegal immigrants voting is actual, not potential. Thousands of non-citizens have cast ballots, in Virginia alone.

The real impetus behind the popular vote is not to secure the national will; it is to secure Democrats’ electoral prospects. As with the efforts to pack the Supreme Court, the Left seeks to overturn the Electoral College, because left-wing candidates cannot win there. As of January 1, 2024, Republicans controlled 28 state legislatures, or 59% of the states. A total of 27 states have elected Republican governors. Individual states reject liberal policies, while those who favor them live largely in coastal metropolises.

“It is important for small states to be heard,” insisted Maibach. “Voices have to be heard from all parts of the country and not just from the big cities.” And it is vital Americans respect the prophetic genius that went into the creation of the Electoral College.