The Popular Vote doesn’t count and you shouldn’t pretend otherwise

As leftists mourn and hyperventilate over Hillary Clinton’s loss a new narrative is emerging; Clinton might have been smoked in the Electoral College, but she won the popular vote. USA Today is reporting Clinton “won” the popular vote 60.1 million to 59.8 million (though some votes are still being counted). They continue, showing that Republicans also “lost” the Senate popular vote by a margin of 5.9 million. But I’m here to burst your bubble. Clinton’s vote and other “national” popular vote totals are almost entirely meaningless.

Scoreboard

If you’ve ever played competitive sports, at some point you’ve likely seen this play out. The losing team makes a big play, some beautiful shot or a big hit, then their opponent reminds them “Scoreboard”. The numbers don’t lie, just because you made a nice play, you’re still losing.

In America, we pick our President via the Electoral College. You don’t win if you get the most retweets. You don’t win if you win the most counties. You win if you win enough individual elections in the 50 states and D.C. and gain 270 electoral votes. If George W. Bush had turned out enough people in Texas to “win” the popular vote in 2000, we still would have had the Florida recount. Similarly, as the Wall Street Journal shows “Mrs. Clinton’s advantage in California alone—more than 2.7 million votes—accounts for more than her projected margin of victory of about two million.” Simply winning safe states by larger margins does not somehow invalidate the election results. 

What we’re scoring changes how we play the game

On Sunday my Denver Broncos played the New Orleans Saints. The Saints had more Total Net Yards than the Broncos (and more touchdowns), but ultimately it didn’t matter. The only thing that mattered to the outcome was the scoreboard. The Broncos and the Saints weren’t playing to see who could get more sacks or throwing yards. They were looking to outscore the other team.

Campaigns weren’t working to win the popular vote. They were designed to win hit 270 Electoral College votes. Ad buys, staffing decisions, and ground game was all dependent on which states might swing one way or the other. Similarly, voters are voting knowing the results will be tallied in the Electoral College. The strategies of the campaigns and the behavior of voters would be completely different if the popular vote was the deciding factor.

If the popular vote decided the election, conservative voters in states like New York and California, who might have just stayed at home as their votes wouldn’t have mattered in the presidential election, would have turned out. You could say the same of liberals in Texas, Alabama, and Utah. We can’t assume the outcome of the election would have gone for Clinton if we just didn’t use the Electoral College. 

When you change how the game is scored, all of the players change their strategies, which changes the outcome in unpredictable ways. Battleground states exist because of the Electoral College. The tactics of presidential campaigns would be completely different in a national vote system and we can’t assume to know the results. But, the Framers decided against a national vote for a reason.

The Electoral College preserves Federalism

The Electoral College was designed by the Framers of the Constitution to provide a moderating effect on presidential elections. Electors were selected by their states (sometimes by statewide election, often simply picked by state legislators and governors) and sent to decide the next president. Alexander Hamilton explained the Framers’ reasoning in Federalist No. 68:

“A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

Even though electors no longer directly pick the next president, the process still serves an important Constitutional function, balancing the power of the states against the federal government and large population centers against rural states. The Electoral College forces candidates to consider “flyover” country. They can’t simply campaign in LA, Chicago, and New York City while ignoring the concerns of the rest of the country. John Samples of the Cato Institute explains:

“The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.”

In an age of increasing regulation from Washington D.C., it’s more important than ever to defend the rights of states and local governments to direct their own affairs. Indeed, we should remember the genius of the Framers as Hillsdale College’s Dr. Larry Arnn reminds us:

“They invented a way of governing, and they extended it without benefit of kings or colonies across a vast continent, bigger than they could imagine…Ruled from Washington, the nation could never have settled this land in freedom nor made it so strong.”