In 2001, Akhil Amar laid out a creative way the US could adopt a national popular vote. Now it might happen — and he worries it could go badly wrong.

The 2026 blue wave could end up washing away the Electoral College. In addition to winning Congress, Democrats won full control of state governments in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. That means that a two-decades-in-the-making plan to switch our presidential elections to a popular vote system — a plan 18 states have already approved— […]

  • lennybirdEnglish
    15·
    4 hours ago

    Man I read that, and maybe I’m missing something, but I find his argument extremely thin.

    As an example: We have an election. It’s nationally very close in the popular vote. So we want to do a proper recount to make sure that the result goes to the popular vote winner. But some ruby red states will say, “We weren’t part of this plan ever. The election in our state wasn’t particularly close. We don’t want to pay for any recount.”

    Okay. But as Counter-Example A: We have an election. It’s nationally very wide. So we look at the numbers and see Hillary won by 3 million more votes but then still hand it to the loser — which is worse?

    As Counter-Example B: We have an election. It’s nationally somewhat close with a half-million vote disparity, but we leave it up to a particular county in a particular state and once tallied up, we still give it to the loser with a 543,000-vote deficit — which is worse? (2000 election)

    These are events that completely altered the trajectory of America and whose margins for inaccuracy and deviating from the Will of the People extend well beyond what would trigger a recount.

    Besides, we’re already entrusting red states to faithfully and independently carry out their tabulations with a certain degree of accuracy. Moreover FairVote.org: "Recounts rarely change the outcome of Elections. and it’s dubious to suggest that recounts are more accurate and less corruptible than the original tally.

    … So, how is this not objectively better than a red state giving its electors on a sliver’s margin in their own state anyway? The inherent “winner-take-all” of 48 states (barring Maine and Nebraska) means a 49/51 grants all votes to the opponent? Absurd. The sliver’s margin of what might trigger a recount is quite a bit different than a 3-million chunk of the pie.

    The idea of the national popular vote isn’t just that it’s “fairly counted,” it’s that you literally prevent the person who won 3 million more votes (Hillary, 2016) from losing, even when they are fairly counted.

    I’d like to hear responses from Lawrence Lessig, John Koza, and Robert W. Bennett.