National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
That didn't end up becoming law, but there will be a critical mass of states opposed to effort (swing states who will lose influence mostly) that will pass things like this making the NPVIC impossible to implement.
And furthermore, because the House is capped at 435, it throws everything off. If we kept following the original algorithm outlined in the constitution, which was very similar to the square root rule, the house would have 1600 members and the EC would still match the popular vote every time.
This is all broken because of the artificial cap on the house that makes each member represent far too many people.
The EC is a fossil from a time when representatives didn’t trust the average person to vote, but they sure as hell wanted the benefit of the average person in their state counting towards their census tally.
Your view, while an accurate representation of the original result of the negotiations of the Founding Fathers, disenfranchises more Republicans in California than there are Republicans in any other state.
State lines were mostly arbitrarily chosen and should not matter when choosing the leader who represents all of the states. For the same reason we use the popular vote of the entire jurisdiction to choose the elected officials for Senate and House, the NPVIC is a good compromise to improve the responsiveness of the government to the voters.
I'm not sure enabling the minority to completely lock up the machinery of governance is a preferable alternative.
If you want to comfortably win elections you just have to win by more than a percent or two.
It is discussed here: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/bill-text
"Popular votes can, however, only be counted from non-member states if there are popular votes available to count. As previously mentioned, Article II of the compact guarantees that each member state will produce a popular vote count because it requires member states to permit their voters to vote for President and Vice President in a “statewide popular election.” Even though all states have permitted their voters to vote for presidential electors in a “statewide popular election” since the 1880 election, non-member states are, of course, not bound by the compact. In the unlikely event that a non-member state were to take the presidential vote away from its own people, there would be no popular vote count available from such a state.
Similarly, in the unlikely event that a non-member state were to remove the names of the presidential nominees and vice-presidential nominees from the ballot and present the voters only with names of candidates for presidential elector (as was the case in 1960 in Alabama as shown by the ballot in figure 2.13 and discussed in section 2.11), there would be no way to associate the vote counts of the various presidential electors with the nationwide tally being accumulated by any regular “presidential slate” running in the rest of the country.
The compact addresses the above two unlikely possibilities by specifying that the popular votes that are to be aggregated to produce the “national popular vote total” are those that are
“… cast for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election … .”
In this way, the first clause of Article III of the compact deals with the unlikely possibility of a “one-state veto” preventing the orderly operation of the compact."
Even if it does stop it, the end result is a catch-22. I don't think a president could then be elected, at least by normal means.
Anyway, my point is states opposed to the NPVIC already have at least one good idea to stymie it. I think they could come up with plenty more. What if states refuse to certify their own votes until a majority of states vote to force a result equivalent to the "old" system?
People said the same thing about Roe vs. Wade being repealed.
Never say never.
Persuaded by this narrative (I presume), then-Governor of Nevada Steve Sisolak vetoed the NPVIC bill back in May of 2019 after it had passed both houses of the Nevada legislature.
Now, five years later, after passing through the legislature a second time, accession to the NPVIC via an amendment to the state constitution of Nevada will be a ballot question in November 2026 for voters — if it passes again in the 2025-2026 legislative session for a third time. [0]
There are a lot of questions about its constitutionality, though. The Wikipedia page is quite good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the_Natio...
Choosing electors based on another state's vote however is not representative.
The history of the Electoral College seems very much at odds with that notion. Indeed, the current state of the Electoral College is at odds with it, since the states mostly switched to winner-take-all apportionment about 100 years ago, and now we regularly get outcomes where the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the Electoral College.
Here's another way to think about it. Is it legal for the American president to be chosen by worldwide vote? As far as the states are concerned, other states are a foreign sovereignty
> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Moreover, the constitution doesn't even tell the electors how to vote!
> The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President...
The question of faithless electors has been delegated to state law as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
> The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
I personally interpret that to mean that the feds will intervene should a state not provide a representative form of government.
The Supreme Court kinda agrees. It's not a common clause that's ruled on, but in 1874, they did rule on it:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-3/AL...']
> the Court stated that the Guarantee Clause leaves room for states to structure their governments in various ways yet remain republican.
Which I take to mean that the Court will intervene should a state do something that is clearly not republican.
> It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it...
From this exerpt, it would seem that a popular vote compact would be more consistent with this definition than the status quo which concentrates voting power into rural populations.
My main concern with the NPVIC is that legislatures might change their mind between election day and elector day if their electors go to the minority party in their state.
A wrestling contest between state legislators would be a perfectly legal way to choose electoral votes. Winner of a foreign vote would not be.
Your version would probably work just fine. They might find a different one. It doesn't really matter.
Umm, sorry, but if Faithless Electors are constitutional, then so is this.
The Constitution doesn't regulate the choice the electors make.
The electors can go by another state's voters, the phase of the moon, or what their pet frog is saying, as far as the Constitution is concerned.
This country was not built as a democracy.
> The electors can go by another state's voters, the phase of the moon, or what their pet frog is saying, as far as the Constitution is concerned.
Sure, but not as far as the law is concerned and the moment the states mandate an elector vote in accordance with a national interstate compact is the moment there's a constitutional issue, because the federal government guarantees to all citizens of states a representative form of government, which means their vote needs to choose a representative that represents them, not citizens of a foreign state.
> This country was not built as a democracy.
That's right, which is why we have representatives elect the president.
In some states, by the laws of those states, which is absolutely irrelevant when we're discussing the legality of the National Popular Vote compact (which is, obviously, kosher on the level of states that opted into it).
>which means their vote needs to choose a representative that represents them, not citizens of a foreign state.
By that logic, the Electoral College itself is unconstitutional.
Or any election. "I didn't vote for X, so X doesn't represent me".
Your interpretation of the word "represent" is not aligned with any real-world elections (including elections in the US).
Also, let me remind you that the Congress exists, and provides two other ways that the states are represented.
>which means their vote needs to choose a representative that represents them, not citizens of a foreign state.
The electors in the electoral college represent citizens that voted for them.
Whoever is decided to be the president by them is assumed to represent the people because it was a choice made by elected representatives.
They can all, collectively, decide to appoint the person that Russia thinks is the best choice, and it will be constitutional.
> which is why we have representatives elect the president.
Which is why there isn't a problem in any criteria those representatives use to elect the president - including the National Vote.
The problem is that what you think representation means and what the constitution codifies are two different things - which is exactly the problem that the National Vote is trying to address.
How so... the electors from each state are chosen only by voters from that state using whatever selection mechanism (based on votes) that the legislature came up with.
> Or any election. "I didn't vote for X, so X doesn't represent me".
In what way have I said this. It's not about whether you individually voted for X. You can be outvoted by your fellow citizens. However, it must be fellow citizens of your state. When it comes to elections and politics, each state is separate. States cannot allow non-state-citizen voters a say in state policies. That's what it means to be a sovereign independent state which the constitution says the states are.
> Also, let me remind you that the Congress exists, and provides two other ways that the states are represented.
Congress has nothing to do with electors.
> The electors in the electoral college represent citizens that voted for them.
That's right. The citizens of the state who they represent. Thus the electors of Oregon represent Oregon voters only. If the electors from Oregon are chosen by national popular vote, then they are inherently representing non-Oregon-citizens, which is illegal, because now oregon citizens have lost representation.
> Which is why there isn't a problem in any criteria those representatives use to elect the president - including the National Vote.
There are major problems with it. It's the same as if the state their governor will be chosen by national vote. Illegal. The government of a state must represent solely those state's citizens, not the citizens of a foreign state.
The electors aren't chosen by the National Popular Vote.
They are chosen by the citizens of the state.
Then these electors go and vote for the winner of National Popular Vote at the convention, according to the wishes of the people that elected them.
You seem to somehow ignore the fact that electors are actual people, and say that something is illegal without a basis.
Right now they're not, but if this compact were to be in force they would.
OK, looks like I was incorrect on that: according to the current plan, they indeed would be[1].
However, that choice is still up to the state. The state may send a pool of any people as electors and require them by law to vote a certain way - under the same principle that outlaws faithless electors in some states.
In the end, whatever choice the elected government of a state makes is the choice of the people. The constitution[2] specifically says that:
>Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Constitution specifically leaves this choice to the Legislature, not to the people of the state.
The Supreme Court has reasoned that the word appoint in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, confers on state legislatures the broadest power of determination[3], so your argument that NPV yields a government that isn't "representative" doesn't hold any water, and has specifically been refuted by the Supreme Court already.
In particular, the legislature specifically has the right to choose the electors.
Input of people other than the state legislature is not required by the Constitution.
[1] https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.10
[2] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/
[3] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-3...
In my opinion the only thing that ought to change is we ought to elect the elector directly. That would make it easier for them to make proper deals and compromises.
I feel like it could go okay if it's in place for a presidential election, and that election has a majority of popular and electoral votes. But if it came into effect and the next election was ambiguous based on whether this compact stands or not, the result would be chaotic at best.
As mentioned in the article, getting congressional approval, and then letting that process go through the courts before enactment, might at least make the deployment reasonable, even if congressional approval may not be strictly required.
You could've stopped at "I'm pessimistic about the Supreme Court". It's completely dysfunctional now.
We need a Supreme Court reform if we want to keep the nation.
> the result would be chaotic at best.
As it already was in the past (Bush vs. Gore), and as I can absolutely assure it will be in 2024 regardless of anything else going on.
>As mentioned in the article, getting congressional approval, and then letting that process go through the courts before enactment, might at least make the deployment reasonable, even if congressional approval may not be strictly required.
Out of the two major parties in the US, one is pushing for National Popular Vote, and the other is famous for sticking for states rights, which is what National Popular Vote Compact is all about (not having the Congress dictate it from the top).
Surely they would support it... right?
More like you need the US house and senate to legislate and coming to stupid party deadlocks, gamesmanship, and worrying what an unpopular vote means to future electability.
The supreme court of the US gained so much power because the legislature stopped legislating.
Source: studied American civics in school
It would be less ironic if this compact wasn't put forward by the same camp that constantly laments gentrification. But when gentrification happens on a intra-state level and states attract so many upper class people that the rural class is effectively nixed out of political representation (eg CA, NY) its not just good, it should directly translate into who gets to decide whos going to be president. Only the urbanites.
Cities are big, but they aren't that big. The 10 biggest cities only have 7% of the population, and then they get a lot smaller from there.
The point is the only way to win the popular vote is by capturing a lot of rural America no matter which party you're part of.
I'm not totally sure that your numbers are correct, at least for presidential elections. Philadelphia's split in 2020 was 81% for Biden and 18% for Trump.
Also of note is that of the five times the popular vote winner did not win, four of those times it was the Republican who won and once it was the more conservative of the two parties (before the Republicans existed).
So yeah, the EC so far has only ever benefited the Conservative Party.
A Lincoln Party or some other new, reformed, conservative party of integrity would stand a chance however—something I welcome, though I would not vote that way.