As an organization theorist, I fear that the effort for the national popular vote, in order to bypass the unfair Electoral College, will further degrade our already broken democracy and distract from real reform.
The proposal does not help the long-standing silencing of the liberal minorities in red states and it will silence the conservative minority in blue states — especially in Maine, where we have the more effective electoral representation by district instead of winner-take-all electoral votes.
Yes, it’s legal, but it is a polarizing means of righting a wrong with another wrong when there are alternatives that are win-win. The alternatives are more effective, less risky, more permanent, bipartisan, and already underway.
Because of the polarizing end-run nature of the national popular vote, it is bound to be delayed by our current — very partisan — Supreme Court.
The national popular vote effort only siphons off critical political capital needed for real reform.
As I see it, our current underrepresented national majority has two options:
1. Attempt to get enough states to agree to change their laws to require electors to follow the national popular vote and take the risks delineated in the points above, or
2. Choose a non-polarizing win-win that avoids the risks by accelerating the more effective reforms that are already succeeding. Take the years of bipartisan research informing proposals for reform of our democracy by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
The academy’s first strategy is to expand both the House of Representatives and the ways that people can vote for their representatives. Change how districts are drawn: first to eliminate partisan gerrymandering and then to make them larger, allowing several representatives per district.
Specifically, there are reforms here that mitigate the conundrum of our Electoral College by preventing all states from suppressing the wishes of their own liberal or conservative minorities. Currently, states limit the number of districts to a huge representation ratio, to the extent that most of us feel unrepresented. Instead ratios of between 200,000 to 750,000 citizens represented by only one representative, let’s give both liberals and conservatives more voice. In doing so, we may reduce the political divide that plagues us today.
The Academy of Arts and Sciences says we should expand the House of Representative by repealing the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act and requiring ranked choice voting coupled with multi-member House Districts, where appropriate, by repealing a 1967 law mandating single-member districts and simultaneously repealing the winner-take-all model, following Maine and Nebraska.
“Many of the concerns that motivated the 1967 law are still valid today,” reads the Academy of Arts and Sciences’ report, “Our Common Purpose: Reinventing American Democracy for the 21st Century.”
“Within the framework of winner-take-all voting, multi-member House Districts would mean a step backward for equal voice and representation. State legislatures could — as they sought to do decades ago — draw large gerrymandered districts that dilute minority votes, both racial and ideological. States that use winner-take-all voting should not be permitted to draw multi-member House Districts. Ranked-choice voting, however, changes the equation dramatically. If multi-member House Districts were coupled with ranked-choice voting in congressional elections, they would encourage the participation of a wider array of candidates, each of whom would have to appeal to a more heterogeneous bloc of voters. Instead of exacerbating the distortions of winner-take-all voting and drowning out minority votes, multi-member House Districts would amplify the representational benefits of ranked-choice voting and signal a victory for equal voice and representation.”
The academy also recommends abolishing gerrymandering by requiring independent citizen redistricting. These reforms are not end runs that trigger more polarization of the electorate. They focus instead on giving more voice to all, simply by ensuring majority rule for each individual state and district.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.