13. Myths about "Mob Rule"
13.1 MYTH: A national popular vote would be "mob rule" and a "popularity contest."
Although state legislatures frequently chose presidential electors in the nation's early years, the last time when presidential electors were chosen by a state legislature was the 1876 election. Thus, if anyone thinks it is appropriate to characterize the American electorate as a "mob," it is now a long-settled fact that the "mob" rules in presidential elections. Similarly, if anyone wishes to characterize our nation's elections as a "popularity contest," it is a long-settled fact that presidential elections are "popularity contests."
The National Popular Vote bill is not concerned with the long-settled question of whether the people should be permitted to vote for President. The bill is concerned with whether popular votes are tallied on a state-by-state basis versus a nationwide basis. The currently prevailing winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular vote in a state) makes popular votes unequal from state to state. The National Popular Vote bill is concerned with the relative political importance of popular votes cast in different states for presidential electors. Under the current system, presidential candidates concentrate their attention on voters from a small handful of closely divided battleground states, while ignoring voters in the vast majority of the states. The National Popular Vote bill would address this shortcoming of the current system by making every vote equally important throughout the United States. Thus, the issue presented by the National Popular Vote bill is not whether the "mob" will vote for President, but whether the "mobs" in closely divided battleground states are more equal than others.
13.2 MYTH: The Electoral College acts as a buffer and damper against popular passions
The Founding Fathers intended that the Electoral College would consist of "wise men" who would deliberate on the choice of the President and select the best candidate. They also thought that the Electoral College would provide a buffer against the will of the people. However, neither of these visions was realized in practice because the Founding Fathers did not anticipate the emergence of political parties and competitive presidential elections.
Political parties emerged as soon as George Washington announced that he would not run for a third term in 1796. The competition for power was between the Federalist party (represented by John Adams) and the anti-Federalist party (represented by Thomas Jefferson). Both the Federalist and anti-Federalist parties nominated their presidential and vice-presidential candidates at a national meeting composed of the party's members of Congress. As soon as there were national nominees, both parties presented the public with candidates for the position of presidential elector. These elector candidates made it known that they intended to act as willing "rubberstamps" for their party's nominees when the Electoral College met. All but one of the presidential electors then dutifully voted as expected when the Electoral College met in 1796. The expectation that presidential electors should "act" and not "think" was thus established in the 1796 election,78 and this expectation has persisted to this day. Of the 21,915 electoral votes cast for President in the nation's 55 presidential elections, only 11 were cast in an unexpected way.79
The fact is that the Electoral College never acted as a buffer or damper against popular passions under the current system.80 Likewise, the Electoral College will not act as a buffer or damper against popular passions under the National Popular Vote plan. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how popular votes are tallied (statewide versus nationwide). The National Popular Vote bill would operate in the context of a system in which the people vote directly for presidential electors in all the states and the presidential electors cast their votes in accordance with the will of the voters who elected them.
78 A Federalist supporter famously complained in the December 15, 1796, issue of United States Gazette that Samuel Miles, a Federalist presidential elector, had voted for Thomas Jefferson, instead of John Adams, by saying, "What, do I chufe Samuel Miles to determine for me whether John Adams or Thomas Jefferfon is the fittest man to be President of the United States? No, I chufe him to act, not to think."
79 As explained in greater detail in section 2.12 of this book, the vote of Federalist elector Samuel Miles for Anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson in 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have intended, at the time he cast his unexpected vote, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
80 The Electoral College did not act as a buffer against popular passions in the nation's first two presidential elections (1789 and 1792) because George Washington was the consensus candidate.
