9.45.1 MYTH: There could be unintended consequences of a nationwide vote for President.
QUICK ANSWER:
- Change can have unintended or unexpected desirable consequences just as easily as it can have undesirable consequences.
- In the case of the current system of electing the President, the consequences of inaction are known and highly undesirable.
- When the states switched to direct popular election of Governors in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, there were no significant unintended or unexpected undesirable consequences.
- If some unintended undesirable consequence materializes, or some adjustment becomes advisable in the National Popular Vote Compact, state legislation may be amended or repealed more easily than, say, a federal constitutional amendment.
One of the generic arguments against any proposed change of any kind is that there could possibly be unintended consequences.
The attractiveness of this intellectually lazy argument is that opponents need not identify any specific consequence or engage in thoughtful discussion about whether the possible consequence is either likely or substantial.
Change can have unintended and unexpected desirable consequences—just as easily as it can have unintended and unexpected undesirable consequences. Merely saying that change might have unintended and unexpected consequences does not provide enough information to determine whether the consequence is negative or positive—much less whether the consequence is likely or substantial.
There are several generic answers to the generic argument about unintended or unexpected consequences:
(1) No significant unexpected undesirable consequences surfaced when an analogous action was taken in a closely related situation.
(2) Reversing the proposed action would be relatively easy if there were significant unexpected undesirable consequences.
(3) The consequence of inaction is that the known shortcomings of the existing system will not be corrected.
Concerning item (1), there certainly were no significant unexpected undesirable consequences when the states switched to direct popular election of their chief executives. In 1787, only Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont conducted popular elections for the office of Governor.[1102] During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the states switched, one-by-one, to direct popular election of Governors. Today, 100% of the states elect their Governors by direct popular vote. After over 5,000 direct popular elections for Governor over two centuries, no state has ever decided to eliminate its direct popular election for Governor. Moreover, there is virtually no editorial, academic, legislative, or public criticism of direct election of Governors.
Concerning item (2), the National Popular Vote Compact is state legislation. If some undesirable unexpected consequence materializes, or some adjustment becomes advisable, an interstate compact may be repealed or amended more easily than, say, a federal constitutional amendment.
Concerning item (3), the consequences of inaction are known and undesirable, including the shortcomings of the current system of electing the President that are itemized in chapter 1.
Footnotes
[1102] Dubin, Michael J. 2003. United States Gubernatorial Elections 1776–1860. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. Page xx.