Before we get to how that may occur, some background is in order. One of the outcomes of the 2000 election was a high level of dissatisfaction that the victor did not win the popular vote. That disgruntlement lives with us today in a movement called the National Popular Vote (NPV), whose goal is to reach a pact among enough states to assign their collective electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, no matter the outcome in the individual states.

The District of Columbia and 10 states, including California, have signed on to the pact, which would be effective when 270 (or more) total electoral votes (EVs) are in the fold. Currently the EV vote count stands at 145.

Additionally, bills in support of the plan have passed at least one state house in 11 other states with an EV total of 85.

Those opposing the NPV argue the unconstitutionality of the agreement and will likely have the opportunity to argue their case before the Supreme Court. But it is unarguable that the NPV moves us away from a Constitutional Republic and closer to a true Democracy, a direction studiously avoided by the founding fathers.

If enacted, the National Popular Vote would be a potentially devastating disruption of a system that has served the nation well for over 239 years. The election of 2000 was an anomaly, one that occurred only once in the past 125 years.

Those favoring the pact attempt to mask much of their hostility over 2000, offering differing explanations for their support. But it is worth noting that of the 21 states mentioned above, 16 were carried by Al Gore — and of the 10 signed on to the agreement, all are “blue” states.

One argument favoring the plan lies in “basic fairness,” as logic tells us the winner of the presidency should be the person with the most votes. That holds true in both mob rule and a Democracy, but not a Republic.

Another reason, pertaining especially to California, is that presidential candidates neither campaign nor spend advertising dollars in the state. Indeed, why should they? Republicans recognize the futility, while Democrats appreciate the opportunity to spend in more competitive regions. California, instead, has become the land of lavish $30,000-a-plate fundraisers, after which politicians simply take the money and run.

The thinking behind the NPV is that candidates will be forced to vie for all votes, not just those in the swing states. Unfortunately this may not be the case — and anyway, there is a better solution to accomplish that goal (more on that later).

I mentioned that California could give a Republican a presidential victory; that may not be as remote a possibility as you think.

Consider: In 2012 President Obama received 61 percent of the electoral votes while garnering 52 percent of the popular vote. The actual vote differential amounted to only 3.5 million of over 120 million cast — less than 3 percent.

Other recent elections have been either close, or won, not with a majority, but with a plurality, as Bill Clinton did twice. The obvious conclusion must be that it is not always how many votes a candidate gets, but in which states those votes are attained.

That being the case, the possibility of a Republican getting 50.1 percent of the national popular vote total, but losing in California, may not be far-fetched. If the popular vote winner did not have the required 270 electoral votes, California, as a result of joining the NPV, would have to cast its 55 votes for a Republican, which would likely tip the scale in favor of the Republican. Would the 60 percent of California voters who vote Democrat tolerate that occurrence?

If it appeared that California was in fact the determinant in a Republican victory despite having voted for the Democrat candidate, would the state’s residents demand a withdrawal from the agreement? Doing so could set up a very ugly legal fight — but considering the visceral reaction to 2000, would anyone expect less?

There is, however, a constitutional alternative to the NPV plan: Congressional District Distribution.

Taking California as an example, if fairness and attracting presidential campaign dollars to the state are the true reasons for favoring the NPV pact, then distributing the EVs to the winner of each district would accomplish both goals.

In the 2000 election, 19 of California’s 52 congressional districts voted for George W. Bush. Those 19 EVs would have ranked California’s Republican districts between Michigan (18) and Ohio (21) in terms of value toward the final goal of 270. This would have greatly increased California’s importance as a target for presidential campaigning.

However, if preventing a reoccurrence of 2000 is the primary goal, that too might be accomplished, yet the result may very well not be in alignment with a majority of California voters, as demonstrated above.

The men who wrote the Constitution did not pretend to think they were writing a perfect document. Indeed, they laid out methodologies to modify the document to reflect changing needs or existent weaknesses. Thwarting the Constitution via the NPV, an agreement made between a minority of states based on either desire for campaign spending or retribution, was not one of them.

Let’s hope common sense prevails and the National Popular Vote movement comes to a slow and well-deserved end.

Dennis Lund is a mechanical engineer who lived in Benicia for more than 20 years.

Sharing is caring!