Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz broke the first rule of the Harris-Walz campaign: He told the truth about a policy objective.
Speaking last Tuesday to California Democrats, Walz said: “The Electoral College needs to go. We need a national popular vote.” Earlier that day, in Seattle, he had called himself “a national popular vote guy.”
Walz’s moment of clarity sent the campaign into crisis mode, with spokesman Teddy Tschann insisting: “Governor Walz believes that every vote matters in the Electoral College.” The New York Times noted that Kamala Harris was previously “open” to ending the Electoral College but that, “during this campaign, she has avoided taking ambitious positions of the type that would upend the American political system.”
Yet, Walz’s record speaks for itself. Just last year, as governor of Minnesota, he signed legislation that included the National Popular Vote interstate compact, a measure that is designed to nullify the Electoral College.
The NPV compact changes how states choose presidential electors, basing it on the nationwide popular vote, not the popular vote in each state. The goal is to force the Electoral College to rubber stamp the national popular vote result.
Minnesota was the 16th state to join the compact when Walz signed it last year, and Maine became the 17th this year. Other states in the anti-Electoral College club include New York, Illinois, and — of course — California.
The NPV compact has a “trigger” — it takes effect if joined by states that together control at least 270 electoral votes. States currently in the compact have 209 electoral votes. If a few more join, 2024 could be the last election where the Electoral College functions as intended.
Abolishing the Electoral College would be a disaster, but Walz’s underhanded plan is especially dangerous. Amending the Constitution is a multi-step process that requires supermajorities in both Congress and the states. The NPV compact could take effect if passed by fewer than half the states.
The NPV compact raises basic questions: Is it fair to combine popular votes from states with very different election processes? What if a state fails to finish counting all its votes on time? How would a nationwide recount work? What about the conflict between ranked-choice voting and NPV? (RELATED: TRENT ENGLAND: Billionaires Push Ranked-Choice Voting Schemes)
Today, each state runs its own election, which means that the results of flawed policies and other election problems are contained within each state. Vermont allows felons to vote from prison, but this only affects the outcome in Vermont. If California lowers the voting age or looks the other way when foreign citizens cast ballots, that only affects the outcome in California.
Walz’s NPV plan would reward states for dubious policies and even illegal election practices by adding those votes into a nationwide total that would — for the first time — control the outcome.
The Electoral College brings checks and balances to presidential elections. While larger states have more electoral votes, there is a limit to how much power they get relative to smaller states. This check on big state power creates more political balance, forcing each major political party to reach out beyond its base.
Because of the Electoral College, Democrats must appeal to voters in places like rural Pennsylvania and small-town Wisconsin. Hence, Harris claims to love fracking, guns and hunting. An emblem for this might be the Harris-Walz campaign’s camouflage hat, which features in Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s bizarre Doritos video.
This helps make sense of Walz’s comments, and the campaign’s rush to cover them up. Walz was telling his California donors that he would like to change the rules to spend more time with them and less time with those other Americans, the people who really do own guns, hunt and understand that it takes fossil fuels to power the American economy.
While politicians like Walz might benefit from the National Popular Vote scheme, voters would be the losers. All Americans are better off with the Electoral College’s checks and balances helping to protect our elections and force both parties to build bigger, broader coalitions. State legislatures should reject the NPV compact, and states — like Minnesota — that have joined it should repeal it.
Trent England is founder and executive director of Save Our States and a producer of Safeguard: An Electoral College Story.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published at dailycaller.com
