Bipartisan Support for Preserving Electoral College Amidst Partisan Perception

The opposition to abolishing the Electoral College is often portrayed as a partisan issue due to Democratic resentment towards Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 despite losing the popular vote. However, Saul Anuzis, a lifelong Republican from Michigan and advocate for reforming the electoral system through the National Popular Vote group, argues that this is not entirely accurate as it is a bipartisan issue. He believes that while Democrats may support changing the way presidents are elected in higher numbers than Republicans due to messaging, more people share conservative values across America and would benefit from having their vote count equally regardless of where they live. Anuzis highlights California’s example; although it has more registered Republican voters than some states combined, voter turnout is significantly lower among the party as a result of feeling politically irrelevant due to its strong Democratic majority. He emphasizes that while there are constitutional arguments for changing how electors are appointed under Article II of the Constitution, historically, governors and state legislatures used to appoint them until after the Civil War when winner-take-all rules were introduced in many states as a reliable way to select electors during times of conflict. Anuzis believes that this approach is constitutional and would not necessarily favor Democrats if it came down to the popular vote being decisive for choosing a president, emphasizing that Republican candidates could win nationwide with sufficient effort and messaging.