Maybe though.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State"

Does that apply to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? Maybe yes, maybe no. The Supreme Court will have the final word.

The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children is one of the many interstate compacts that do not require (and never received) congressional consent.

Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

The U.S. Constitution provides:
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state…."

Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
"Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

"The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."

Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states' action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:
"the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government."

The Court also noted that the compact did not
"authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence."

suggests its not nearly as cut and dried as you suggest.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43823

Defeats your claim....
"Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

This case is Exactly why this 'compact" and your claims would get killed in the courts...the increase of political power in such a "compact".

Not to mention in cases like this..the need for Congressional approval as I pointed out below.

The power to appoint electors, and the formula by which they are chosen, are constitutionally exclusive to the states and have been since the beginning.

You are confusing structural "political power" with partisan power. The structural power relationship between the states and the federal government would remain unchanged. Only a certain political party would see its political power eroded.

For the sake of this argument..Dumpster wins the P V by say 12k because of a county in Florida or Pennsylvania and EC votes are single digits apart in the States Not in the compact...BUT California and N.Y. overwhelmingly votes for say..VP Biden, and as a part of the compact all their EC votes go to Dumpster giving him a win he's not entitled to under current EC standards.(Use any candidates you want..it won't be a thing in '20)

Do you think for a second N.Y. and Ca.(and the rest of the compact) voters are not going to immediately and rightfully so, claim disenfranchisement?

This line of yours is 100% accurate.."The power to appoint electors, and the formula by which they are chosen......".
But when the state allocates the electors opposite to how their state/s votes and gives them to a candidate that OTHER states voted for, the voters in that state/s are disenfranchised..their votes count for nothing

It's a mathematical fact.
No voter would be disenfranchised - deprived of the right to vote.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800).

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The state based winner take all system was not adopted by a majority of the states until the 11th presidential election. - decades after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The National Popular Vote states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
- Vikram David Amar - professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

If their votes aren't counted...in the manner they were cast....they are disenfranchised regardless of how many c&p's w/out attribution you do.
A "right to vote" is meaningless if they are ignored or worse..reversed.

Moot point anyway as I said before..IF(I highly doubt it will) there where enough states to fall for this to get to 270....SCOTUS will kill it.

As I pointed out to you days ago..there's already a SCOTUS case out there that would likely require Congress to approve this "compact"..quoting my other post(notice I include a link to my c&p)..
"The Court in 1893, however, stated in Virginia v. Tennessee that congressional consent is required only for a compact if it is “directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

Your "compact" would certainly qualify for the standard of.."..tending to the increase of political power in the States..."
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/interstate-compacts/us.php

All votes would be counted in the manner they were cast, and included as 1 vote in the national popular vote total.
The election would be run with the knowledge that it would be won by the candidate with the most national popular votes.
No vote would be ignored or reversed.
Every vote in every state will matter and count equally in the national popular vote total.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

"The election would be run with the knowledge that it would be won by the candidate with the most national popular votes." Decided by a legislature..not the voters. It won't go up for referendum....right?
The problem with that is that pesky EC electors deal. The voter in each state votes for the electors and if a compact state give electors to a candidate the STATES voters voted Against.....that's disenfranchisement.

If California & NY votes overwhelmingly for Sen. Warren in 2024 and the R candidate wins by 3 PV's overall......California & NY will be in court 37 seconds after they "have" to give their EC votes to the R if(it won't) this scheme became a thing ...and you know that

When(actually if.. because I firmly believe you won't get enough to form the compact) SCOTUS decides it... you won't like that decision....I haven't seen 1 attorney on this Forum yet say that it will survive adjudication....and your c&p's(without required attribution) aren't making a valid legal argument for it.

Let's revisit this if it becomes a reality and ends up in SCOTUS. It will go to SCOTUS.
No point in going on now because it's NOT a thing...and honestly I suspect it never will be. You would need states that know it cuts their own throats..and they ain't doing that.

Whether it holds up or not, one thing is certain: It will be challenged on at least two grounds of being unConstitutional and it will certainly wind up at the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by state legislatures with governors making changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Last edited Mon Oct 14, 2019, 08:16 AM - Edit history (2)

For the sake of this argument..Dumpster wins the P V by say 12k because of a county in Florida or Pennsylvania and EC votes are single digits apart in the States Not in the compact...BUT California and N.Y. overwhelmingly votes for say..VP Biden, and as a part of the compact all their EC votes go to Dumpster giving him a win he's not entitled to under current EC standards.(Use any candidates you want..it won't be a thing in '20)

Do you think for a second N.Y. and Ca.(and the rest of the compact) voters are not going to immediately and rightfully so, claim disenfranchisement?

I'll bet this would be 9-0 in SCOTUS unconstitutional

What if your situation happens, but CA refuses to comply (despite pledging to), and still gives its votes to Biden?

This compact stuff is DOA.....

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:

“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”

An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

lost in that state.....everyone has been devalued.

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
One person, One vote. 1=1

to the way the states citizens voted.

as I said..I'm not worried by it...won't stand a SCOTUS review

1 = 1 .

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

In presidential elections, current state statewide winner-take-all laws create the illusion that entire states voted 100% for the state’s winner, because the laws award 100% of each state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most votes in the state. However, for example, in Connecticut, the actual vote was 898,000 votes for Clinton; 673,000 for Trump, 49,000 for Johnson, and 23,000 for Stein.

The price that a state pays for its winner-take-all law is that no presidential candidate has anything to gain or lose by soliciting voters or catering to voter issues in 38 states in the November general election. The Democratic candidates take blue states for granted, The Republican candidates take red states for granted. Every voter in safe states—Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green—ends up without any meaningful influence or voice in the presidential election.

Some voters have voted for every presidential election since the early 1990s, but state winner-take-all laws for electoral college votes have made sure not a SINGLE vote in their life for president has mattered because they are in the minority party in their state. They could have never voted for President, and still had the same impact. None.

With National Popular Vote,
Every vote in the country would actually count equally toward selecting the winner. Candidates would have an incentive to campaign in all states instead of ignoring 38 "safe" states and "lost cause" states. Think it through. Republicans in California and New York could actually help elect a Republican President. Democrats in Colorado and Texas could actually help elect a Democratic President. Now their votes are meaningless because states award all their electoral voters to the statewide winner.


With National Popular Vote, every voter, in every state, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
All votes would count equally towards the national vote

The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as New Hampshire or Florida. The National Popular Vote bill would give voice to every voter in the country, as opposed to treating voters for candidates who did not win a plurality in the state as if they did not exist.

Why don't you?

You and the compact fans will lose in SCOTUS......the "compact" will be deemed unconstitutional in every court case....

It's technically an indirect election, but practically it's a true national election. Your argument is the same as me saying my town has been "disenfranchised" because the gubernatorial candidate me and my neighbors voted for didn't with the statehouse. It's utterly absurd.

And if you're making some kind of argument for the idea that all state residents should have some kind of proportional say in the outcome of the EC vote … that isn't the case right now. Every four years, up to 49.9% of state residents get to watch every one of their electors go to the guy they didn't support.

Last edited Wed Oct 16, 2019, 08:04 AM - Edit history (1)

"It's technically an indirect election, but practically it's a true national election. Your argument is the same as me saying my town has been "disenfranchised" because the gubernatorial candidate me and my neighbors voted for didn't with the statehouse. It's utterly absurd."

1'st point...a vote for a Governor is a state issue, majority of the state votes elects the Governor....not bound by the Constitution or EC standard....you know that right?
2'nd point...what the Hell is a town vote being on the losing side of a state election have to do with a full states National results being erased by this compact? If that happened SCOTUS reversal.

Statewide and National elections are done differently on Purpose....we don't have EC in state elections....we aren't a democracy on the Federal level because the Founders knew that a tiny majority could hog tie the minority...

This "compact" will not survive SCOTUS....as I said above, I think..would bet, it would die 9-0....but it won't get there..you'll never get enough states to give away their votes....won't happen.

Two huge liberal states like New York and California shouldn't be able to "disenfranchise" red states.

It's an immoral and illogical argument. Either you accept the principle that every person's vote is equal, or you don't. You can't claim "disenfranchisement" just because the guy your residents like doesn't win.

You keep talking about SCOTUS review, yet you clearly have no understanding of the issue.

For the sake of this argument..Dumpster wins the P V by say 12k because of a county in Florida or Pennsylvania and EC votes are single digits apart in the States Not in the compact...BUT California and N.Y. overwhelmingly votes for say..VP Biden, and as a part of the compact all their EC votes go to Dumpster giving him a win he's not entitled to under current EC standards.(Use any candidates you want..it won't be a thing in '20)

Do you think for a second N.Y. and Ca.(and the rest of the compact) voters are not going to immediately and rightfully so, claim disenfranchisement?

It's a joke that doesn't know yet that it's a joke.

The thing's completely unenforceable.

What's to keep any state from bailing out of the 'contract' (It's not even really a contract...it's just basically a promise based on a handshake) whenever they feel like it.....for instance when they'd rather give their electoral votes to the candidate that their citizens voted for....even if their citizens didn't vote for the same guy/girl that the rest of the country voted for?

Nothing...that's what.

The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:

“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”

An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

The agreement only says that states will select electors that are pledged to vote for the winner of the national popular vote.

The electors can still vote however they'd like.

It would be a simple matter for a republican controlled state to send electors that are "pledged" to vote for a Democratic candidate the won the national popular vote........and then have it shockingly (wink, wink) turn out that all of them are faithless, and vote for the republican anyway.

, Each political party in each state nominates a slate of candidates for the position of presidential elector. This is most commonly done at the party’s congressional-district conventions and the party’s state convention during the summer or early fall. It is sometimes done in a primary.

Typically, each political party chair certifies to the state’s chief election official the names of the party’s candidate for President and Vice President and the names of the party’s candidates for presidential elector.

Under the “short presidential ballot” (now used in all states), the names of the party’s nominee for President and Vice President appear on the ballot.

When a voter casts a vote for a party’s presidential and vice-presidential slate on Election Day (the Tuesday after the first Monday in November), that vote is deemed to be a vote for all of that party’s candidates for presidential elector.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Under statewide “winner-take-all” laws, , not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution now used in 48 states, the presidential-elector candidates who receive the most popular votes statewide are elected.

In district winner states, the candidate for the position of presidential elector who receives the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote).

In states enacting the National Popular Vote bill, when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538, all of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC).

Each state’s presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President.

Faithful electors of the Electoral College will continue to elect the President.

It's good form to credit your sources. I'll credit one of them for you:

http://www.irpe.org/sites/default/files/how-electoral-college-works-v8-2017-8-1.pdf

Nothing you "said" addressed what keeps an elector from voting however they'd like to.

You're telling me Mississippi is going to send Democratic Electors? Yeah ok. They will send Republican Electors, and say "now be a good Elector and vote Warren" wink wink.

All of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

There's no way it holds up in court, nor should it.

“ Let’s quit pretending there is some great benefit to the national good that allows the person with the least votes to win the White House. Republicans have long said that they believe in competition. Let both parties compete for votes across the nation and stop disenfranchising voters by geography. The winner should win.” – Stuart Stevens (Republican)

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

When asked the simple question “Do you think the person who wins the most votes nationwide should become the president?” 74% of all Americans surveyed say yes.

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, in every state, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency.
Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as Pennsylvania or Florida is now.
Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

Because the requirement that they can’t back out during the last six months of an election is itself an unenforceable handshake deal.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

Doesn't say what you seem to think it does.

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

The argument that states have a constitutional right to determine how they allocate their EVs is inconsistent with this argument... because they can't give away such power by mere contract.

The fact that some other interstate compacts have been upheld does not mean that any and all compacts would, therefore, be upheld.

If, for instance, a state supreme court were to rule that the legislature did not have the power to apportion EVs other than by a democratic process within the state... and that ruling were to occur 30 days before an election... whining that "but we signed a contract!!!" would not matter in the slightest.

Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

The very argument for the constitutionality of the compact (doesn't affect the balance of power with the federal government) also makes it difficult for a federal court to get involved in enforcement.

This would be Bush v. Gore squared.

No State that leans Republican will sign on; the easy States have already been picked up.

In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill

..that will survive SCOTUS adjudication.

rely on a popular vote that's honest and secure.

Now we need to urge state legislators, in states with the 74 more electoral votes needed, to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, state legislation, The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

good luck with that.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by state legislatures with governors making changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution and amend it.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

..would probably need Congressional consent....
"The Court in 1893, however, stated in Virginia v. Tennessee that congressional consent is required only for a compact if it is “directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

Your "compact" would certainly qualify for the standard of.."..tending to the increase of political power in the States..."
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/interstate-compacts/us.php

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by state legislatures with governors making changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution and amend it.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The "compact" won't survive SCOTUS.....and as I've said, because of the magnitude of the compact may need approval from Congress.

I 'redid' the 2016 election with the amount of electoral votes based on a 'new' House of Representatives.

My 'new' House had 550 members. Wyoming received one member, and the remaining states received one member for every 563,767 (population of WY)people they had. trump still ended up winning the election by the same percentage of electoral votes (369-281).

That was not the result that I was expecting.

I also redid the election using my 'new' House of Representatives, and not awarding states electoral votes for their Senators. This way, the amount of electoral votes a state received was based only on it's population.

Surprisingly, trump still would have won by about the same percentage. (309-239)

The sheer number of millionaires in Congress is staggering (you can't even crack the top-50 without a net worth of at least $7.1M!!!). The number of middle class or working class representatives is depressing (somewhere around 5 or 10 - that's TOTAL, not percentage).

It won't matter how many congressmen and senators there are until the composition of the Congress is forced to more approximate the wealth of the population at large.

Say for argument that the mean HOUSEHOLD (all people under a single roof) income is $62,000 and the PER CAPITA (per person income) is $32,000 at the median (half above and half below) or $48,000 at the mean (the average income). OK, that seems like a lot of mumbo-jumbo already, but here comes my point...members of Congress are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher paid than any of those figures...

Back in 2014 (BEFORE Trump's tax cuts and giveaways to the corporations and wealthy), the median wealth of a congressman was $456,000.

Congress = $456,000
Average American = $32,000
If you're keeping score at home, that is roughly 14.25 times as much EVERY YEAR!

Simply put, the economic interests and values of the people making 14.25 as much as the people they supposedly represent are not compatible in any way, shape or form.

Every Congressional delegation, from every state, should be mandated to reflect the median income of that state during the preceding Congress (we have a new Congress every 2 years). You could have half above and half below, but you could not have delegations where 80-90% of the members are 4-5X the median if not higher...economic decisions made by a body slanted 90-10 towards WEALTH are always going to remain exactly where we are - regardless of party unless fundamental change is introduced. Elizabeth Warren's proposal to tax corporate PROFITS instead of REVENUE and to eliminate deductions is a FANTASTIC step in the right direction, as are proposals to implement wealth taxes alongside income taxes (although income taxes should be replaced by wealth taxes.

I have no problem with people making as much money as they can LEGALLY obtain...I have a HUGE problem with the way we tax that after becomes wealth instead of simply income.

Think we would STILL have an INCOME TAX instead of a WEALTH TAX?
Think we would STILL have PRIVATE Health insurance instead of UNIVERSAL CARE?
Think college would STILL cost as much as a large mortgage?
How about the price of new cars hovering around $35,000 to $50,000 and up?

Think teachers, firefighters, police and sanitation personnel would be making the LOW end of that median income in many places?

How about CEO pay limits? Think they would still be earning THOUSANDS of times the average salary of the employees in their corporations?

Let's talk Hedge Funds too...seeing as these people draw their clientele from the millionaire and above class (about 6% of the total US population by some estimates)...think those scumbags would be paying LESS taxes than the lower end of the median income earners?

We are being severely fucked in the ass by a government of the millionaire, by the millionaires and for the millionaires. Unless THAT is adjusted, my bag of fucks for the number of these assholes fucking me is kinda empty at the moment...

We need major structural reform of our tyranny of the minority system, but the very reasons why we need reform make it nearly impossible to bring about said reform.

Any change in that will require a constitutional amendment. Not so easy to manage, eh?

A lot of people have proposed getting rid of the Electoral College, but they all seem to ignore what that would require.

We're a long way from that point. Republicans still have a majority in the Senate.

If you want to do this, then you must work to elect 67 Senators who will go along. That's your assignment.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by state legislatures with governors making changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution and amend it.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

435 in the House severely shortchanges the big states.

If we had equal representation in the House, the Electoral College would be a lot closer to equal as well.

I agree the EC needs to be ditched, but we can accomplish this with a normal bill in Congress rather than a Constitutional Amendment.

The results of the electoral vote would have been almost exactly the same if the House had been expanded and the number of representatives for each state were based solely on relative population.

The electoral vote would even have been about the same if states didn't receive electoral votes for their two Senators, but only for their Representatives.

From https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml?sort=Popu#table

If you look at the largest states, their number of people per representative is very close to the national average of 710,767. The smaller states' figures vary much more drastically, both above and below the average. This isn't surprising, given how averages work.

to ratify the change. No, our path forward is getting up and voting, getting up and helping others to vote. As long as so many find every excuse not to, we will have the level of politics we have now, enriching those at the top at the expense of everyone else

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral vote

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800).

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The state based winner take all system was not adopted by a majority of the states until the 11th presidential election. - decades after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

Congressional districts, beyond the 435.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 271 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

The current system creates two kinds of Americans, those who matter and those who don’t. Those who are treated like they matter or they don’t matter. Those who believe that they matter or don’t matter.

The current system is responsible for lower political engagement in generally uncontested or “flyover” states, especially for Republican voters living in solidly blue states, and Democratic voters living in solidly red states.

The easiest way to convince people not to vote is to have our current system in which their votes don't matter.

“Americans tend to vote when they feel their vote will matter,” - The Wall Street Journal in its analysis of voter turnout in the 2016 presidential election. Due to the nearly universal winner-take-all system of allocating states’ entire slate of electors to the in-state winner, no matter how close the outcome, voters in deep blue states (think California) or deep red states (think Texas) have less incentive to vote: winning the state by a greater margin does nothing to help candidates, and perennially losing makes seeking votes in that state a lost cause with no benefit to the losing party.

More Republicans and Democrats in Texas, and more Republicans and Democrats in California would vote if individual vote tallies actually mattered in their home state

More people register to vote and do vote when they know their vote matters.

If you're a Republican voter in a blue state or a Democratic voter in a red state, your vote for president doesn't matter to your candidate.


With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 12 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 70-80% of the country that is conceded months in advance by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

A national popular vote could increase down-ballot voter turnout during presidential election years.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

Now, voters in the minority in non-battleground states, red or blue, are cheated in every presidential election.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates.
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the then 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

In 2016, in battleground states, turnout hit 65%, 5 points higher than in non-battleground states.

We are a Constitutional Republic that uses elections to fill offices in a federated system.

The Senate does not in any way reflect the principles of a representative democracy as a voter in Idaho has 46 times the power of a California voter.

The Senate is a much less democratic institution than the EC as they apportionment is not only wildly not proportional but all legislation requires a supermajority.

If 18% of the population won the 21 least populated states by 50% +1 they could control the Senate. Not a representative democracy. It was a federated system that patched 13 independent states into a system that apportioned power on a state by state basis in the Senate. The only institution based on democratic representation is the House and that is severely compromised by gerrymandering so that a majority of votes doesn't guarantee a majority in the House.

Large states are hugely under represented..

The Apportionment Act, obviously, applies to House representation.

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml
2012 - 2020 Federal Representation by People per House Seat, Senate Seat, and Electors

From the chart at the link, the average population per representative is 710, 767. Sorting by the "People per House seat",
it appears that smaller states head up the list, not larger states.

Were there any particular large states that you had in mind?

I had something altogether different in my head, which is often out to lunch 🙂

I do feel the restriction on the number of representatives in the House makes for under representation in general, but given the caliber of some elected reps, maybe more wouldn’t be better. I also think the Constitution should be amended to allow for direct election of the president and ditch the electoral college.

Gerrymandering, in the short term, will require resources to fight on a state by state basis. imo

You think it will?

start toward equal representation in elections.

And I don't think that the limit on the # in the house requires a constitutional amendment to change.

But, house members wouldn't want their power diluted by having more voices, so it is probably never going to happen.

Discarding this democracy-eroding relic must be a top priority once we win big (and we will) across the board in 2020.

We are not now nor have have we ever been a "democracy"...on purpose.

Then it can be eliminated in the same way the Republicans achieve their goals -- by undemocratic means. Either way, it has to go.

Or SCOTUS declares the EC unConstitutional....do you see that happening in anyone posting here lifetime?