Note: The following is a report from national popular vote activist Mark Bohnhorst summarizing the arguments for the National Choice Ballot.
In early March, a fundamentally new approach to the question of national popular vote for president was unveiled by Making Every Vote Count (MEVC). (MEVC is a non-partisan, pro-national popular vote group based in the District of Columbia.) The current name for MEVC’s new idea is National Choice Ballot, although some prefer Voter Choice Ballot. It is referred to here as simply Ballot.
The Ballot offers voters the choice of casting a second, generic vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The second vote is counted—in place of the first vote—if the voter’s first choice does not win the national vote. The most complete analyses of this new idea to date are a March 2020 Special Report and April 2020 Supplemental Report, hosted on the home page of Minnesota Citizens for Clean Elections. This is an executive summary of those reports, with a few new perspectives added.
There are compelling reasons to support the Ballot. Of utmost importance, the Ballot is in complete alignment with the interstate compact among the states to elect the president on the basis of the national popular vote (“Compact”), originated in 2006 by National Popular Vote organization and championed for 15 years under the outstanding leadership of Dr. John Koza. Both share the same critique of the “winner take all” system for selection of presidential electors. Both recognize that, exercising their plenary power over presidential elections under Article II of the constitution, the states themselves can remedy the current dysfunction in our presidential election system. Both recognize the process of repair will unfold over time.
An important distinction is that the Ballot takes effect in each state immediately in the next presidential election after it is adopted. The Compact, on the other hand, does not have any effect until states with 270 electoral votes have signed on. Both the Compact and the Ballot aim to change the way presidential elections are conducted—from battleground state centered to nation centered. The Ballot supplements the Compact and advances one of its main goals by making the national popular vote as relevant as possible as soon as possible, pending the day when the Compact is in force.
The extent to which the “nation-centric” goal will be advanced will vary, depending on the characteristic of the state that adopts the Ballot. If Florida were to adopt it (presumably through an initiative campaign and election), it would be clear that the winner of the national vote will win the electoral college, and both major parties would need to campaign for the votes of all the citizens, in all states and all neighborhoods. MEVC’s first poll shows strong support for the Ballot across the political spectrum in Florida and nationally.
Consider quasi-battleground states—those that are historically blue or red, but may be trending toward battleground status (e.g. blue Minnesota, where the 2016 margin was 1.5%, or red Arizona, which is trending blue). If these or similarly situated states adopt the Ballot, their status will change from potential battleground to safely in the column of whoever wins the national vote. Candidates would need to think long and hard about adopting a nation-centric strategy.
Even if initially the Ballot is adopted only in “safely blue” states (it is unlikely to be adopted in a “safely red” state at this time), the broader national popular vote movement would benefit. Because the Ballot takes effect immediately, wherever it is adopted it will generate invaluable free publicity. As voters cast national popular vote ballots, and as Secretaries of State calculate who won the national vote and allocate votes to that winner, both the concept of a national popular vote and the workability of implementing national vote elections will be reported and discussed in the 24/7 news cycle. As the public comes to understand what a national vote election looks like, the prospects for the Compact will only improve.
In the 2020 election, a safely blue state can also serve as a non-partisan laboratory to test the extent of support for national popular vote among all categories of voters. The election is “non-partisan” because the outcome—in a California or a Washington, D.C.—is a foregone conclusion. Republicans and third party voters can vote their true convictions about national popular vote, knowing it will not affect the election results. Democrats can vote their convictions because they are reasonably certain Biden will win the national popular vote.
The Ballot is a profoundly democratic innovation. In each election, voters in adopting states decide for themselves—and decide collectively—the extent to which the national vote will be relevant in the state’s election. Each election serves as a sort of plebiscite on the popularity and wisdom of a national vote. This democratic feature also makes the Ballot extraordinarily flexible. If unique circumstances call into question the wisdom of casting a national vote in a given election, individual voters can respond by not exercising the option to cast such a vote.
The Ballot can work well with Ranked Choice Voting (“RCV”) for electors, which Maine will use this year. RCV standing alone does nothing to advance the cause of national popular vote for president. Layering the Ballot over RCV would give Maine voters both the right to have their final top choice decided through ranked choice and the option to vote for the national vote winner. Only the Ballot could make national popular vote relevant in Maine’s election this year.
Finally, although casting two votes for president might seem strange or even radical, in fact the Ballot—both its two-vote structure and its purpose—is firmly rooted in the nation’s constitutional history. In the original Electoral College, from 1788 through 1800, electors cast two votes for president. Remarkably, the two vote system was first discussed at the constitutional convention in connection with a national popular vote. As explained by James Madison, the two vote system, whether used in a popular vote or in the electoral college, was designed to promote consensus and cohesion. That is the very purpose of the national vote option.
The Ballot deserves close attention and serious consideration.
Mark Bohnhorst
Chair, Presidential Elections Team
Minnesota Citizens for Clean Elections
Note: Opinions expressed in this report are my own and not necessarily those of Minnesota Citizens for Clean Elections