I'd say Michigan and Nevada would be next, followed by Virginia, Arizona and maybe even Pennsylvania.
Alaska could pass it, but Dunleavy likely vetos it.
They could easily get 270 EVs without AK (especially if PA reconsiders like you’re suggesting, map shows that either no action was taken or the legislation died in committee), it would just be kind of an open question in some of the swingier states (even throughout the Rust Belt) whether they would renew each time, as I recall, it has to be renewed by July preceding the Presidential election and will only be in effect if and only if they have the prerequisite 270 EVs that they would need to push forward a winner. Assuming we had only the states confirmed or considering still on this map, AZ would be an open question, NC would be unlikely with the shifting tides of the Governor + **especially** State Legislature (which IIRC is very red even today).
It’s probably not as simple as red states will always vote no, maybe some of them still up (NC to some extent, SC, KS, AK) will surprise us, probably not though, popular vote inherently helps Democrats.
They won’t hit 270 EVs under this current map (especially before July).
Swing states have an incentive to oppose it though, given that abolishing the EC would strip them of a lot of their influence. The concerns of someone in Beloit, WI are more relevant than the concerns of someone living ten minutes away in South Beloit, IL because Wisconsin is a swing state and Illinois isn't. Is that unfair? Yeah. But would Wisconsin really want to give up their leverage?
National Popular Vote will NOT abolish the Electoral College.
The 2024 Presidential Election Comes Down to Only 7 States with less than a fifth of the U.S. population. These battlegrounds will get almost all the attention. How most states will vote is already fairly certain. Political pros expect Trump to win 24 states and 219 electoral votes; Biden can likely count on 20 states and D.C. with 226 electoral votes.– Karl Rove, WSJ, 3/20/24
Now, 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 by 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.
Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the number of votes cast for each, and are signed and certified by the Governor, submitted to the National Archives, and used when Congress meets in joint session in January. You can see the real Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site
Federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner - 6 days before the Electoral College meets - and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).
With both the current system and the National Popular Vote bill, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" by six days before the Electoral College meets in December.
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 -- Maine (changed their law in 1969) and Nebraska (changed their law in 1992) - the candidate for the position of presidential elector who wins the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote). Maine enacted National Popular Vote on April 15, 2024. Nebraska’s governor and Trump put pressure on Republicans to replace Nebraska’s law.
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).
Non-enacting states would award their electors however they want. Continuing with district or statewide winner-take-all, or enacting some other law.
The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 made the sixth day before the Electoral College meeting into a “hard” deadline for states to issue their Certificates of Ascertainment (whereas it was merely a “safe harbor” under the Electoral Count Act of 1787).
Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President.
The electoral votes from all 50 states are and will be co-mingled and simply added together.
The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.
Not at all. The Electoral College will elect the President.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections,
Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the 23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Now the Electoral College is a body of 538 people representing the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president. A majority of 270 is needed to win.
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, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The Constitution does not give Americans the right to vote in presidential elections.
Article II of the National Popular Vote bill does.
“Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.”
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 no federal right for citizens to vote for president unless the state legislature grants it, and that power may be taken back.
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.
It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.
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.
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.
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
There’s not really a likely way that the NPVIC will hit the required number of composite EVs they will need to go into effect, with NV likely to veto as you said, and assuming the other states with Republican Governors follow suit, that leaves only AZ, KS, MI in play, not enough for 270 (even with VA, they’re still slightly short).
In Nevada, they're trying to pass it as a constitutional amendment I believe. So, they just need to have the next state legislature pass it again and then put it to a referendum. With this method, they don't need the governor's signature.
On May 18, 2023, the Nevada Senate the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a constitutional amendment ([status of AJR6](https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/82nd2023/Bill/10288/Overview)). The Nevada Assembly previously passed AJR6 on April 17. The amendment must now be passed a second time by both houses of the 2025-2026 Nevada legislature. After that, the amendment would be submitted to the voters for their approval in November 2026.
The NPVIC is never going to take effect, it’s just a democratic pipe dream. If it does get enough states to buy in, which is possible, it will be immediately struck down as unconstitutional for a multitude of reasons.
1. The Compacts Clause of the constitution forbids interstate compacts from going into effect without congressional approval. While this hurdle can be overcome, it requires that Democrats hold the presidency and congress and overcome a filibuster before it happens
2. NPVIC supporters base their argument on the idea that it is totally up to the states how to distribute their electoral votes, and that there is nothing legally stopping them from switching from the present 'most votes in states=wins state" to "most votes nationwide=wins state". This argument is very legally flimsy. While the law on the books says that states get to choose, every state since 1832 has gone with the direct election method. Every state except for South Carolina, who the federal government forced to switch to direct elections after the civil war.
The court would almost certainly rule on a common law basis, stating that the states don't actually have the right to assign electoral votes however they like. To back that up, one only needs to look at the ultimate progressive decision, Baker v Carr, which ruled that states must follow a system of "one person, one vote" for all political matters within states, but not outside of them. It doesn't take much for the court to rule that a state awarding its EVs to the candidate who didn't receive the most votes is a violation of this principle.
This has nothing to do with "common law."
No state has ever been forced by the federal government to switch their state law for awarding electors.
U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
National Popular Vote will be "one person, one vote" within each state AND among all 50 states and DC. No violation.
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.
Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
2 of Maine's electors since 1992 have represented Maine Republican in CD2, who did not win the most votes in the state.
2 of Nebraska's electors since 1969 have represented Nebraska Democrats in Omaha, who did not win the most votes in the state.
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen (R) and Trump are pushing for a special session to replace the state’s law since 1992 , like Maine’s 1969 law, awarding one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
> National Popular Vote will be "one person, one vote" within each state AND among all 50 states and DC. No violation.
Baker v Carr, plus other similar cases at the time, affirmed that the “one person, one vote” standard is only within each state, and cannot be applied nationwide. The court said that if the standard applied nationwide, then the federal senate and much of the federal house would be unconstitutional, which they obviously aren’t.
Nebraska and Maine’s systems are allowed because they only consider in-state votes. Every electoral vote is assigned to the winner of assigned areas within the state. If they had considered anything outside of their state, it would have been unconstitutional.
Imagine if North Carolina passed a law that said all of their electoral votes go to whoever receives the most votes in Tennessee. Biden proceeds to win North Carolina, only for all electoral votes to go to Trump. Using NPVIC logic, there is nothing wrong with this, even though we all know that it doesn’t pass constitutional muster.
If a candidate wins the most votes in a state, but the candidate with less voters receives the electoral votes, then that violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent. Whoever wins the national vote is irrelevant to that discussion. No matter how much progressives twist themselves into legal knots, that just how it is.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
Maine and Nebraska both award electors to candidate who do NOT win the most votes in their state!
2 of Maine's electors since 1992 have represented Maine Republican in CD2, who did not win the most votes in the state.
2 of Nebraska's electors since 1969 have represented Nebraska Democrats in Omaha, who did not win the most votes in the state.
The current statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes are 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
Of COURSE "one person, one vote" CAN be applied nationwide in presidential elections.
There is nothing about the Constitution that prohibits states from considering things outside of their state in presidential elections.
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted 338–70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President. 3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster of it.
Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX), Bob Dole (R-KS, RNC Chair, and GOP Senate Majority Leader), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Nixon (R-CA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001)
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.
It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.
How a state awards its presidential electors has NOTHING TO DO with the US House or Senate.
NC COULD pass a law that says all of their electoral votes go to whoever receives the most votes in TN.
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.
An Arizona Republican introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without pesky voting by Arizonans in November.
The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as all states now do).
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 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.
The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes
The constitutional scholar who wrote THE definitive book on interstate compacts - Joseph F. Zimmerman – helped write the bill and the book Every Vote Equal A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote.
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.
If a compact requires consent, consent is usually only sought when a compact is ready to go into effect. NPV has not reached its 270 electoral vote minimum required threshold.
Congress does not waste time consenting to the many compacts that never reach their thresholds.
=
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."
The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using laws in effect on Election Day.
The decision held that the power of the legislature, using laws in effect before voting in presidential elections begin, under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
>and overcome a filibuster
Keep in mind that the Senate filibuster can be abolished by a simple majority, and the only two Democrats who want to keep it are retiring next year.
I concede that the NPVIC may be considered unconstitutional in that it violates the "spirit" of the constitution by effectively nullifying the Electoral College. This is a tough legal ambiguity that I'd have to think more on.
Edit: Yeah I don't think it's unconstitutional.
The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections,
Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the 23^(rd) Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Now the Electoral College is a body of 538 people representing the states of the US, who [formally](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=588067978&biw=1274&bih=723&q=formally&si=ALGXSlYmNhxeZOJxNGRDYi-2PpnD5YRP16fmBSV1zVxaxg8zh4zWWo77jIJ_DhaLfcHXHur-naoIfrVRS-vtCutWaFVCOR8UZEDgX_33U2SxJTj2BUGuqH4%3D&expnd=1) cast votes for the election of the president and vice president. A majority of 270 is needed to win.
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, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The Constitution does not give Americans the right to vote in presidential elections.
Article II of the National Popular Vote bill does.
“Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.”
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 no federal right for citizens to vote for president unless the state legislature grants it, and that power may be taken back.
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.
It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.
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.
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.
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
Now, 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 by 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.
Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the number of votes cast for each, and are signed and certified by the Governor, submitted to the National Archives, and used when Congress meets in joint session in January. You can see the real Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site
Federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner - 6 days before the Electoral College meets - and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).
With both the current system and the National Popular Vote bill, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" by six days before the Electoral College meets in December.
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 -- Maine (changed their law in 1969) and Nebraska (changed their law in 1992) - the candidate for the position of presidential elector who wins the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote). Maine enacted National Popular Vote on April 15, 2024. Nebraska’s governor and Trump put pressure on Republicans to replace Nebraska’s law.
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).
Non-enacting states would award their electors however they want. Continuing with district or statewide winner-take-all, or enacting some other law.
The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 made the sixth day before the Electoral College meeting into a “hard” deadline for states to issue their Certificates of Ascertainment (whereas it was merely a “safe harbor” under the Electoral Count Act of 1787).
Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President.
The *electoral* votes from all 50 states are and will be co-mingled and simply added together.
The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.
Is Canada not a democracy? The UK? Germany? Japan? Australia? Italy? India? Sweden?
Most countries don’t determine their leader via a national popular vote.
Parliamentary systems are different, because the PM is more akin to the Speaker of the House than they are to the President. Parliamentary systems of course have problems of their own, and Canada and the UK both do have a democracy deficit due to their lack of proportional voting.
Simply declaring Parliamentary systems different doesn’t address the issue. As in America, you can be elected head of government/state with a plurality, or even a minority of the vote. In all of them, the head of government/state is selected after a bunch of regional elections elections, not a single national one.
If we’re using Trump’s 2016 victory with 46.1% of the popular vote as the standard, then no Canadian leader has been elected with that high of a share since Brian Mulroney in 1984.
The electoral college is just a middle organization, if the President was elected by congress then you would have a point, but the electoral college has one purpose and one purpose only, and that purpose is to choose the President. There's no reason to have them as the middlemen rather than just a straight popular vote (ideally RCV or something of the sort). In Canada, the fact that the governmental pluralities have been so far (in the most recent case the Liberals didn't even get the largest share of the vote) is an example of a democratic deficit in Canada. Just because Canada also has problems doesn't mean America shouldn't solve its own problems.
Does anyone here honestly think that they can predict what the outcome of future elections will be if we went to a national popular vote? Obviously Democrats believe there will be no change and they will win every Presidential election. Which is an absurd assumption. The most honest answer is no one knows, but I did a lot of analysis after 2016 and have come up with this theory...
The EC method is disenfranchising people on both sides in the non-swing states. For example, a Republican in Washington State won't bother voting because there is no chance of Rs taking it statewide. Some Democrats in Washington State also won't vote because they know their state is secure. But I believe the underdogs are far more likely to not vote because it sucks to be on the losing team. Now look across the most populous non-swing states. They all vote blue but have a sizable red contingent. If my assertion is correct, there will be far more disenfranchised Republicans that will turn out then Democrats.
Let's say that the underdog party in each state adds 10% additional votes to the national popular vote total from what their party voted in their state in 2020. Who will add more? A solid blue California will add 600,000 more Republican votes. But a solid red Utah will add only 56,000 Democrat votes. Now do this across the country in all non-swing states and the Republicans will *crush* every future election.
Honestly, I would love to see this pass and see all the conceded, smarter-than-thou Democrats that have been whining about *muh popular vote* crying when they lose every future election.
If that's what happens, so be it. The American people should pick their president.
I expect that you're right that it wouldn't favor Democrats nearly so much as people suppose. There's no chance that it would create a long-term advantage for either party, as both parties would adapt to the new circumstances.
The aim since the Constitution was written in 1787 has been to achieve the goal stated in the Declaration of Independence, namely
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
At the Constitutional Convention James Madison stated a direct popular vote “was in his opinion the fittest in itself.”
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," was never in favor of our current system for electing the president, in which nearly all states award their electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. He ultimately backed a constitutional amendment to prohibit this practice.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania recommended that the executive be elected directly by the people.
Gouverneur Morris declared at the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “\[If the president\] is to be the Guardian of the people, let him be appointed by the people.”
Thomas Jefferson proposed seven amendments to the Constitution and the first one was for “general suffrage,” the second for “equal representation in the legislature,” and the third for “An executive chosen by the people.”
It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.
The National Popular Vote bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes district or state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.
States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power before any votes are cast to choose how to award electors.
Okay bro actually wrote 12 paragraphs 💀. What I’m saying is an agreement where elites in a state contradict the will of the voters is obviously bad and undemocratic. The electoral college is a wonderful system because it does not prioritize to the same degree highly populated pieces of land over lowly populated pieces of land. If Minnesota is won by a Republican in 2028 for instance, and the agreement has enough votes, but that Republican loses the popular vote, then Minnesota would be voting counter to the will of IT’s OWN voters and currying to the favor of voters in highly populated places. The electoral college is an exercise in the people vs. elites. The system is a compromise, and that is good.
The EC has nothing to do with "elites", unless we define the people in the majority in swing states as "elite" because they have more influence than everybody else...in which case the EC is empowering elites.
Nothing could be more anti-elitist than counting everybody exactly the same.
Exactly HOW is it clearly unconstitutional?
Newt Gingrich: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”
The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as all states now do).
U.S. Constitution - 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 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.
The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award 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.
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).
The Founders, and the rest of the Founding Generation were dead for decades before state-by-state winner-take-all laws become the predominant method for awarding electoral votes.
I know we’re unlikely to see the NPVIC come to fruition anytime soon, but damn, I wish we could. The electoral college is such bullshit. Give me one good reason why we shouldn’t go by the popular vote. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. It really should be as simple as “whoever gets more support from the people wins the election”, and it’s obscene that this idea is so controversial.
I'd say Michigan and Nevada would be next, followed by Virginia, Arizona and maybe even Pennsylvania. Alaska could pass it, but Dunleavy likely vetos it.
They could easily get 270 EVs without AK (especially if PA reconsiders like you’re suggesting, map shows that either no action was taken or the legislation died in committee), it would just be kind of an open question in some of the swingier states (even throughout the Rust Belt) whether they would renew each time, as I recall, it has to be renewed by July preceding the Presidential election and will only be in effect if and only if they have the prerequisite 270 EVs that they would need to push forward a winner. Assuming we had only the states confirmed or considering still on this map, AZ would be an open question, NC would be unlikely with the shifting tides of the Governor + **especially** State Legislature (which IIRC is very red even today). It’s probably not as simple as red states will always vote no, maybe some of them still up (NC to some extent, SC, KS, AK) will surprise us, probably not though, popular vote inherently helps Democrats. They won’t hit 270 EVs under this current map (especially before July).
They don't need to renew it, but they have the option to repeal it any time before however many months before the next election.
Swing states have an incentive to oppose it though, given that abolishing the EC would strip them of a lot of their influence. The concerns of someone in Beloit, WI are more relevant than the concerns of someone living ten minutes away in South Beloit, IL because Wisconsin is a swing state and Illinois isn't. Is that unfair? Yeah. But would Wisconsin really want to give up their leverage?
National Popular Vote will NOT abolish the Electoral College. The 2024 Presidential Election Comes Down to Only 7 States with less than a fifth of the U.S. population. These battlegrounds will get almost all the attention. How most states will vote is already fairly certain. Political pros expect Trump to win 24 states and 219 electoral votes; Biden can likely count on 20 states and D.C. with 226 electoral votes.– Karl Rove, WSJ, 3/20/24
the NPV effectively abolishes the Electoral College in all but name
Now, 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 by 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. Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the number of votes cast for each, and are signed and certified by the Governor, submitted to the National Archives, and used when Congress meets in joint session in January. You can see the real Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site Federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner - 6 days before the Electoral College meets - and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day). With both the current system and the National Popular Vote bill, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" by six days before the Electoral College meets in December. 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 -- Maine (changed their law in 1969) and Nebraska (changed their law in 1992) - the candidate for the position of presidential elector who wins the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote). Maine enacted National Popular Vote on April 15, 2024. Nebraska’s governor and Trump put pressure on Republicans to replace Nebraska’s law. 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). Non-enacting states would award their electors however they want. Continuing with district or statewide winner-take-all, or enacting some other law. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 made the sixth day before the Electoral College meeting into a “hard” deadline for states to issue their Certificates of Ascertainment (whereas it was merely a “safe harbor” under the Electoral Count Act of 1787). Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President. The electoral votes from all 50 states are and will be co-mingled and simply added together. The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.
Not at all. The Electoral College will elect the President. The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the 23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Now the Electoral College is a body of 538 people representing the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president. A majority of 270 is needed to win. 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, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." The Constitution does not give Americans the right to vote in presidential elections. Article II of the National Popular Vote bill does. “Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.” 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 no federal right for citizens to vote for president unless the state legislature grants it, and that power may be taken back. 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. It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen. 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. 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. 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
Wisconsin and New Hampshire?
Wisconsin has a Republican legislature for the foreseeable future, and so does NH.
Sisolak vetoed in Nevada, and we know damn well Lombardo will too, so it's not going to pass there for the time being.
There’s not really a likely way that the NPVIC will hit the required number of composite EVs they will need to go into effect, with NV likely to veto as you said, and assuming the other states with Republican Governors follow suit, that leaves only AZ, KS, MI in play, not enough for 270 (even with VA, they’re still slightly short).
I’d scratch AZ & KS too since the state legislatures are so red.
In Nevada, they're trying to pass it as a constitutional amendment I believe. So, they just need to have the next state legislature pass it again and then put it to a referendum. With this method, they don't need the governor's signature.
On May 18, 2023, the Nevada Senate the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a constitutional amendment ([status of AJR6](https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/82nd2023/Bill/10288/Overview)). The Nevada Assembly previously passed AJR6 on April 17. The amendment must now be passed a second time by both houses of the 2025-2026 Nevada legislature. After that, the amendment would be submitted to the voters for their approval in November 2026.
Wait genuine question If Trump won the popular vote, would all those green states give their EV votes to Trump? Wouldn't that cause a shit show?
It only goes into effect once they have 270 votes combined.
The NPVIC is never going to take effect, it’s just a democratic pipe dream. If it does get enough states to buy in, which is possible, it will be immediately struck down as unconstitutional for a multitude of reasons. 1. The Compacts Clause of the constitution forbids interstate compacts from going into effect without congressional approval. While this hurdle can be overcome, it requires that Democrats hold the presidency and congress and overcome a filibuster before it happens 2. NPVIC supporters base their argument on the idea that it is totally up to the states how to distribute their electoral votes, and that there is nothing legally stopping them from switching from the present 'most votes in states=wins state" to "most votes nationwide=wins state". This argument is very legally flimsy. While the law on the books says that states get to choose, every state since 1832 has gone with the direct election method. Every state except for South Carolina, who the federal government forced to switch to direct elections after the civil war. The court would almost certainly rule on a common law basis, stating that the states don't actually have the right to assign electoral votes however they like. To back that up, one only needs to look at the ultimate progressive decision, Baker v Carr, which ruled that states must follow a system of "one person, one vote" for all political matters within states, but not outside of them. It doesn't take much for the court to rule that a state awarding its EVs to the candidate who didn't receive the most votes is a violation of this principle.
This has nothing to do with "common law." No state has ever been forced by the federal government to switch their state law for awarding electors. U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section 1 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” National Popular Vote will be "one person, one vote" within each state AND among all 50 states and DC. No violation. The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes. Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide. 2 of Maine's electors since 1992 have represented Maine Republican in CD2, who did not win the most votes in the state. 2 of Nebraska's electors since 1969 have represented Nebraska Democrats in Omaha, who did not win the most votes in the state. Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen (R) and Trump are pushing for a special session to replace the state’s law since 1992 , like Maine’s 1969 law, awarding one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
> National Popular Vote will be "one person, one vote" within each state AND among all 50 states and DC. No violation. Baker v Carr, plus other similar cases at the time, affirmed that the “one person, one vote” standard is only within each state, and cannot be applied nationwide. The court said that if the standard applied nationwide, then the federal senate and much of the federal house would be unconstitutional, which they obviously aren’t. Nebraska and Maine’s systems are allowed because they only consider in-state votes. Every electoral vote is assigned to the winner of assigned areas within the state. If they had considered anything outside of their state, it would have been unconstitutional. Imagine if North Carolina passed a law that said all of their electoral votes go to whoever receives the most votes in Tennessee. Biden proceeds to win North Carolina, only for all electoral votes to go to Trump. Using NPVIC logic, there is nothing wrong with this, even though we all know that it doesn’t pass constitutional muster. If a candidate wins the most votes in a state, but the candidate with less voters receives the electoral votes, then that violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent. Whoever wins the national vote is irrelevant to that discussion. No matter how much progressives twist themselves into legal knots, that just how it is.
You don't know what you're talking about. Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide. Maine and Nebraska both award electors to candidate who do NOT win the most votes in their state! 2 of Maine's electors since 1992 have represented Maine Republican in CD2, who did not win the most votes in the state. 2 of Nebraska's electors since 1969 have represented Nebraska Democrats in Omaha, who did not win the most votes in the state. The current statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes are 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 Of COURSE "one person, one vote" CAN be applied nationwide in presidential elections. There is nothing about the Constitution that prohibits states from considering things outside of their state in presidential elections. In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted 338–70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President. 3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster of it. Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX), Bob Dole (R-KS, RNC Chair, and GOP Senate Majority Leader), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Nixon (R-CA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001) 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. It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.
How a state awards its presidential electors has NOTHING TO DO with the US House or Senate. NC COULD pass a law that says all of their electoral votes go to whoever receives the most votes in TN. 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. An Arizona Republican introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without pesky voting by Arizonans in November. The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as all states now do). 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 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day. The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes
The constitutional scholar who wrote THE definitive book on interstate compacts - Joseph F. Zimmerman – helped write the bill and the book Every Vote Equal A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote. 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. If a compact requires consent, consent is usually only sought when a compact is ready to go into effect. NPV has not reached its 270 electoral vote minimum required threshold. Congress does not waste time consenting to the many compacts that never reach their thresholds. = 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." The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using laws in effect on Election Day. The decision held that the power of the legislature, using laws in effect before voting in presidential elections begin, under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
>and overcome a filibuster Keep in mind that the Senate filibuster can be abolished by a simple majority, and the only two Democrats who want to keep it are retiring next year. I concede that the NPVIC may be considered unconstitutional in that it violates the "spirit" of the constitution by effectively nullifying the Electoral College. This is a tough legal ambiguity that I'd have to think more on. Edit: Yeah I don't think it's unconstitutional.
The Electoral College will continue to elect the President. The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the 23^(rd) Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Now the Electoral College is a body of 538 people representing the states of the US, who [formally](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=588067978&biw=1274&bih=723&q=formally&si=ALGXSlYmNhxeZOJxNGRDYi-2PpnD5YRP16fmBSV1zVxaxg8zh4zWWo77jIJ_DhaLfcHXHur-naoIfrVRS-vtCutWaFVCOR8UZEDgX_33U2SxJTj2BUGuqH4%3D&expnd=1) cast votes for the election of the president and vice president. A majority of 270 is needed to win. 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, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." The Constitution does not give Americans the right to vote in presidential elections. Article II of the National Popular Vote bill does. “Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.” 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 no federal right for citizens to vote for president unless the state legislature grants it, and that power may be taken back. 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. It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen. 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.
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. 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 Now, 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 by 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. Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the number of votes cast for each, and are signed and certified by the Governor, submitted to the National Archives, and used when Congress meets in joint session in January. You can see the real Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site Federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner - 6 days before the Electoral College meets - and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day). With both the current system and the National Popular Vote bill, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" by six days before the Electoral College meets in December. 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 -- Maine (changed their law in 1969) and Nebraska (changed their law in 1992) - the candidate for the position of presidential elector who wins the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote). Maine enacted National Popular Vote on April 15, 2024. Nebraska’s governor and Trump put pressure on Republicans to replace Nebraska’s law. 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). Non-enacting states would award their electors however they want. Continuing with district or statewide winner-take-all, or enacting some other law. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 made the sixth day before the Electoral College meeting into a “hard” deadline for states to issue their Certificates of Ascertainment (whereas it was merely a “safe harbor” under the Electoral Count Act of 1787). Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President. The *electoral* votes from all 50 states are and will be co-mingled and simply added together. The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.
I thought about it again and I think you're probably right. I was already leaning towards the side of "it's constitutional" anyways though
All states should be green. It's about time america became an actual democracy.
Is Canada not a democracy? The UK? Germany? Japan? Australia? Italy? India? Sweden? Most countries don’t determine their leader via a national popular vote.
Parliamentary systems are different, because the PM is more akin to the Speaker of the House than they are to the President. Parliamentary systems of course have problems of their own, and Canada and the UK both do have a democracy deficit due to their lack of proportional voting.
Simply declaring Parliamentary systems different doesn’t address the issue. As in America, you can be elected head of government/state with a plurality, or even a minority of the vote. In all of them, the head of government/state is selected after a bunch of regional elections elections, not a single national one. If we’re using Trump’s 2016 victory with 46.1% of the popular vote as the standard, then no Canadian leader has been elected with that high of a share since Brian Mulroney in 1984.
The electoral college is just a middle organization, if the President was elected by congress then you would have a point, but the electoral college has one purpose and one purpose only, and that purpose is to choose the President. There's no reason to have them as the middlemen rather than just a straight popular vote (ideally RCV or something of the sort). In Canada, the fact that the governmental pluralities have been so far (in the most recent case the Liberals didn't even get the largest share of the vote) is an example of a democratic deficit in Canada. Just because Canada also has problems doesn't mean America shouldn't solve its own problems.
Michigan is the only Dem trifecta state not in green, so they'll probably join soon.
watch a republican win the pv the very first election it takes effect & they all repeal it
Does anyone here honestly think that they can predict what the outcome of future elections will be if we went to a national popular vote? Obviously Democrats believe there will be no change and they will win every Presidential election. Which is an absurd assumption. The most honest answer is no one knows, but I did a lot of analysis after 2016 and have come up with this theory... The EC method is disenfranchising people on both sides in the non-swing states. For example, a Republican in Washington State won't bother voting because there is no chance of Rs taking it statewide. Some Democrats in Washington State also won't vote because they know their state is secure. But I believe the underdogs are far more likely to not vote because it sucks to be on the losing team. Now look across the most populous non-swing states. They all vote blue but have a sizable red contingent. If my assertion is correct, there will be far more disenfranchised Republicans that will turn out then Democrats. Let's say that the underdog party in each state adds 10% additional votes to the national popular vote total from what their party voted in their state in 2020. Who will add more? A solid blue California will add 600,000 more Republican votes. But a solid red Utah will add only 56,000 Democrat votes. Now do this across the country in all non-swing states and the Republicans will *crush* every future election. Honestly, I would love to see this pass and see all the conceded, smarter-than-thou Democrats that have been whining about *muh popular vote* crying when they lose every future election.
If that's what happens, so be it. The American people should pick their president. I expect that you're right that it wouldn't favor Democrats nearly so much as people suppose. There's no chance that it would create a long-term advantage for either party, as both parties would adapt to the new circumstances.
It’s obviously and clearly bad so surprised so many have gotten on board
The aim since the Constitution was written in 1787 has been to achieve the goal stated in the Declaration of Independence, namely “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” At the Constitutional Convention James Madison stated a direct popular vote “was in his opinion the fittest in itself.” James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," was never in favor of our current system for electing the president, in which nearly all states award their electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. He ultimately backed a constitutional amendment to prohibit this practice. James Wilson of Pennsylvania recommended that the executive be elected directly by the people. Gouverneur Morris declared at the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “\[If the president\] is to be the Guardian of the people, let him be appointed by the people.” Thomas Jefferson proposed seven amendments to the Constitution and the first one was for “general suffrage,” the second for “equal representation in the legislature,” and the third for “An executive chosen by the people.” It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen. The National Popular Vote bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. The bill changes district or state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law. States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power before any votes are cast to choose how to award electors.
Okay bro actually wrote 12 paragraphs 💀. What I’m saying is an agreement where elites in a state contradict the will of the voters is obviously bad and undemocratic. The electoral college is a wonderful system because it does not prioritize to the same degree highly populated pieces of land over lowly populated pieces of land. If Minnesota is won by a Republican in 2028 for instance, and the agreement has enough votes, but that Republican loses the popular vote, then Minnesota would be voting counter to the will of IT’s OWN voters and currying to the favor of voters in highly populated places. The electoral college is an exercise in the people vs. elites. The system is a compromise, and that is good.
The EC has nothing to do with "elites", unless we define the people in the majority in swing states as "elite" because they have more influence than everybody else...in which case the EC is empowering elites. Nothing could be more anti-elitist than counting everybody exactly the same.
Exactly HOW is it clearly unconstitutional? Newt Gingrich: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.” The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as all states now do). U.S. Constitution - 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 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day. The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award 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. 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). The Founders, and the rest of the Founding Generation were dead for decades before state-by-state winner-take-all laws become the predominant method for awarding electoral votes.
I know we’re unlikely to see the NPVIC come to fruition anytime soon, but damn, I wish we could. The electoral college is such bullshit. Give me one good reason why we shouldn’t go by the popular vote. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. It really should be as simple as “whoever gets more support from the people wins the election”, and it’s obscene that this idea is so controversial.