What if the
winner of the popular vote
won the presidency?
The National Popular
Vote Interstate Compact
is an agreement between certain states
to allocate their votes
in the electoral college
based on the results of
the national popular vote.
That's radically different
from the way that
electoral votes are allocated right now.
The Constitution gives each state a number
of electoral votes equal
to the total number
of that state's senators and
representatives in Congress.
State legislatures have
the power to choose
the method of selecting
their presidential electors,
and all but two states
give their electoral votes
to the candidate who receives
the most votes in that state.
The other two award electoral votes based
on which candidate wins
each congressional district
in those states.
The winner of the
presidential election is the
person who receives the
majority of the electoral
college's 538 votes,
regardless of which candidate
wins the popular election.
The National Popular
Vote Interstate Compact
seeks to change this arrangement.
States joining the Compact
agree to allocate their
votes based on the results
of the national popular vote.
This means that if the
Compact were joined by enough
states to constitute a majority
of seats in the electoral
college, and the Compact, by its terms,
would not go into effect unless it did.
The winner of the national popular vote
would be guaranteed to win the presidency.
Choosing presidents based
on the national popular vote
would alter the way candidates campaign
and would change the balance
of power between the states.
The electoral college encourages
candidates to concentrate
on swing states.
But the Compact would
encourage candidates to seek
the greatest possible
total number of votes.
And the most efficient way to do that
would to be concentrate on the
country's population centers.
For that reason, a
national popular vote plan
would be expected to shift
power to the high-population
areas on the coasts.
Some argue that the compact violates the
Interstate Compact
Clause of the Constitution,
which prohibits states
from entering into compacts
with each other without
the consent of Congress.
These opponents of the Compact
claim that the Constitution
forbids interstate agreements
that alter the distribution
of power between states
and they argue that the
compact would do exactly that.
By subverting the electoral college,
the Compact would undermine the protection
the electoral college
gives to small states.
And the Compact would
instruct electors to reject
their own state's interests and the views
of their state's voters
in favor of the candidate
who received the most
votes across the nation.
Thus, the Compact would
take a system based on
the Great Compromise's
balance of power between
large and small states,
and replace it with pure majoritarianism.
Defenders of the compact, however,
argue that the Interstate
Compact Clause outlaws
only those interstate
agreements that undermine
the supremacy of the national
government over the states.
Because the compact
simply changes the means
of choosing the President,
it would do nothing to alter
the powers of the presidency,
the national government
or the states as a group.
Therefore, they argue,
the Compact is constitutional.
Further, defenders of the Compact argue,
nothing in the Constitution
tells the states
how they must allocate their electors.
If they want to appoint electors based on
the national popular vote,
the Constitution leaves
that choice up to them.
The National Popular
Vote Interstate Compact
has not yet gained enough
states to go into effect,
but if it does, it will certainly
be challenged in court.
But for now, the constitutionality of
the National Popular
Vote Interstate Compact
remains an open question.
