Counterpoint: Popular vote scheme would invite more scheming

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Minnesota Rep. Mike Freiberg does not address the fundamental flaw with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ("National Popular Vote would give voters equal say," Opinion Exchange, May 23). It is simply that the compact's language assumes the existence of a traditional popular vote total in each state but it provides no details on how that is to be ascertained.

Opponents of this measure would be able to take advantage of this ambiguity. This would allow a state to throw a wrench in the works by adopting alternative methods for choosing their electors. Methods that are not conducive to producing an unambiguous national popular vote total.

Maine, for example, has implemented ranked-choice voting for federal elections including for the presidency. Under that system, each voter's single vote can be reassigned to different candidates through multiple rounds of tabulation until one candidate has an absolute majority. The NPVIC does not specify whether votes on the first round or the last round should be counted in such circumstances, and either choice could cause problems.

With a ranked-choice system, if a candidate wins an outright majority over 50% of the first‐choice ballots, tabulation stops at that point. But if they fall short of 50%, the votes for lower‐ranked candidates are redistributed. The winning candidate might accumulate many thousands more votes in a final round.

If those final‐round votes are what's counted for NPVIC purposes, it could be a huge boon for a candidate to not do too well on first-choice votes, so that they get to add those second‐ and third‐choice votes to their national total.

Another example arose in North Dakota recently where their Senate passed a bill saying their state will withhold its popular vote totals for president until after the Electoral College has voted in December. Instead, the state would only publish the rough percentages. This is deliberately aimed at making it impossible to properly calculate the national popular vote total in time to award electors on that basis. Similar bills have been introduced in other states.

These are just some examples of how the NPVIC could be confounded by variations in state election procedures. State legislators from states with smaller populations could undoubtedly come up with many more, and they surely would if the NPVIC ever nears its 270 electoral‐vote trigger.

For example, states could simply take the names of presidential candidates off the ballot, letting voters pick only between a "Republican" and "Democratic" slate of elector candidates. While this ruse would be transparent, with everybody knowing which party is backing which candidates, it's not clear that the compact would have a way to count those votes. Worse, there's no guarantee all of the states in the compact would reach the same conclusion.

The NPVIC is an invitation to a constitutional crisis. With the world's most powerful office at stake, America's presidential election procedures need certainty and stability. The Electoral College provides that, and allows each state a voice in electing the president.

Jim Piga lives in Mendota Heights.