The Wall Street Journal of July 12 has this op-ed, attacking the National Popular Vote Plan and defending the Electoral College as it is today. The op-ed is by Political Science Professor David Lewis Schaefer, who teaches at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts.
The op-ed makes several assertions that are not supported by the evidence. It says a system in which the voters elect the president directly “would encourage more minor-party candidates” and says this would be a bad thing because someone could win with a small share of the vote. Actually, if the goal is to have a system in which no one is elected without having a majority of the vote, one should favor the system used by France. In France, the voters elect the president directly, but there is a run-off if no one gets 50% in the first round. The run-off is held only three weeks after the first round.
It is the current system in which someone may get elected with a relatively small share of the vote. The current system produced Abraham Lincoln in 1860, even though he only had 39.8% of the popular vote. It also produced John Quincy Adams in 1824 with 31.9%, Woodrow Wilson in 1912 with 41.8%, Richard Nixon in 1968 with 43.4%, and Bill Clinton in 1992 with 43.0%.
The op-ed also says, “In a two-party race, you can’t win an election without demonstrating your acceptability to a large swath of the public”, but there has been no presidential election with just two candidates, or just two parties, since 1864.
The op-ed also reveals an ignorance about minor parties when it refers to “Ross Perot’s 1992 Reform Party.” The Reform Party was not founded until 1995; Perot was an independent candidate in 1992.
