Article 1, Compact 3 of the US Constitution.
That's the basis of questioning the legality of the NPVI
It may be that the NPVIC has to be replaced by an informal agreement, where the states that support the Compact all simultaneously but "unilaterally" change their system for appointing electors to one that implements a national popular vote. The trigger for this would that enough states have passed motions of intent to support this change "at some point". That would seem like no more of a Compact than one state lowering its sales tax when it notices a nearby state doing the same.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
First off, I would tend to consider the potential need for a contingent election as a bug, not a feature. But that aside, the claim seems wrong. It is certainly possible in principle for a popular-vote election involving the whole country to result in a tie; it's just extremely unlikely. But perhaps the wording of the NPVIC doesn't stipulate that in the event of a tie, the participating states' electors will be allocated so as to generate an Electoral College tie as well, if possible — and what happens if it isn't possible?
If Texas manages to finally flip during this presidential election, though, I'd say all bets are off and the NPVIC might finally become law of the land.
Note that some states with almost similar number of electoral votes are going in the other direction. Florida is becoming more safe red all the time, and PA is a swing state and might become safe red at some point.
That's what it flipping would mean. TX was purple. Then it became red. Its demographic trends[0] show it coming into play again.
The good news is that under a national popular vote, a Republican could probably survive a narrow popular vote loss in Texas or Florida and still win the presidency, because every GOP vote in those states would still count toward a national popular vote majority.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/28/gop-natio...
[0] At least as long as the Republican Party is adamantly anti-immigrant. https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/20/texas-hispanic-popul...
To say it a different way, at some point if the democrats gets popular enough they win every state. That doesn't mean that every state is a swing state, just that people are fed up with that party.
Long term the demographics are not looking good for Texas GOP, based on current voting trends. Most likely the party will adept and come up with new policies to attract different voters. Or you know suppress the vote and rig the elections.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_federalism#Constitutional...
Citation needed. The electoral college does not represent the interests of the electorate more than a popular vote does.
We don't go ask, say, Catholics which presidential candidate they prefer, and then award the winner the entire Catholic vote (including those who have been disenfranchised from voting, or who didn't vote). Yet we do that with states.
As a case in point look at the state of Washington. Two counties comprise all aspects of the state's politics, due to their population size and density relative to the rest of the state, often in stark contrast to the rest of the state. The majority of the states residents are thus represented, but the majority of districts and communities comprising that state are not.
A district, like a religious orientation, is not a hive mind, where a minority of people who vote for the most popular candidate should be able to co-opt the voting power of the rest.
Under a popular vote, counties besides King and Snohomish would have representation, instead of being ammunition used by those two.
I disagree. A rural agricultural community has very real security and economic concerns very different from a high density urban community. Those feelings are very real. Under a purely popular vote those concerns are instantly and conveniently discarded. That concern is the principle benefit of representational government and that concern is essential.
If CA would award the electoral college votes proportional it would force both parties to take it seriously. It would also make each vote more meaningful and listen to the voters.
It would obviously be bad for the democratic party, but good for the state and the people living there. And perhaps it would make other states take the same choice to be relevant again. Although some red states are becoming unintentionally relevant like Texas that is actually not a safe state this election.