The main argument against the NPV is that it will make rural American’s votes meaningless. Why even vote if you’re a conservative rural American, when the election will be decided by liberals in the nation’s population centers? I would flip that argument and ask why a majority of Americans, those who mostly live in cities, should be ruled by a minority that is primarily rural and mostly white?

The electoral college was formed when the nation consisted of 13 states that were truly independent entities, and the president represented 13 states, not 320 million individual Americans. Each state was much more like a separate country than they are today. The United States of America might just as well have been called the United Countries of America. That is not the case today. As much as some people would like more state control and less federal government, the reality is we live under federal control much more than state control. Absent another civil war, that reality isn’t going away anytime soon.

The electoral college, over at least the past half-century, has helped maintain minority rule. Registered Republicans make up less than 20% of the overall population, but, in just this century, the electoral college has elected two Republican presidents who lost the popular vote. By voting yes on 113, we can take a significant step toward genuine national democratic representation. Not pure democracy, where the people themselves make the laws, but a true democratic republic, where the people do get to choose who should represent them as President.

If your vote should count as much as the vote of someone in New York City or Los Angeles, shouldn’t the reverse be true? Shouldn’t every vote in the nation count, not just those in “swing” states?

Marcus Dean


Load comments