# National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: Convincing states to join **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 22, 2016, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729 "2016-11-22T10:42:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/21 "2016-11-22T20:45:33Z")
So to be clear, the triggering mechanism is indeed a de facto compact in your ooinion? I ask because technically, the states haven’t done direct negotiating and no specific states are even required to join in. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/22 "2016-11-22T20:58:52Z")
I think so. Unless the threshold is set at 538. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/23 "2016-11-22T21:20:23Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Note that the Blues will have the worst of both worlds if they “get enough” — the Reds will win if they get the popular vote, and also (because they’re not in the alliance) may win with the electoral vote. I’m not sure what you mean by this. The compact isn’t designed as a “make the Democrats always win” button. It’s designed to give the presidency to the winner of the popular vote. > [@septimus](#): > > If Red state(s) do join, can they be trusted to vote Blue when their state (and a majority of ev’s) are Red? I do not think so — the agreement would not be legally binding. Note that the current system is also not legally binding. In 2000, any number of states could simply have voted the opposite way and changed the election. This is an aspect where a certain amount of trust is involved, but if it’s a weak point, then it’s already a weak point. States can impose certain penalties on electors if they vote opposite what they were directed to. Some states have small fines at the least. I don’t know if prison time is an option. > [@septimus](#): > > Note that in a close election, recounts might be needed in all fifty states (not just the close states). This is just American exceptionalism hand-waving. Other large democracies don’t seem to have problems with recounts. They can be done in parallel, after all. > [@septimus](#): > > Differential poll access would be a bigger problem than it is today. No, it’s less of a problem. If one wants to influence the election by limiting poll access (in whatever form), then one currently has to focus on just a few states. With a true national poll, that effect is diluted across the US. They have to work much harder to bridge the gap. > [@septimus](#): > > … _And it’s all to solve a non-problem_. Although the elections of 2000 and 2016 were unfortunate, that’s all the ev/pop vote mismatches were: unlikely misfortune. The mismatch is really just a symptom of the problem. The real problem is the distorted attention paid to the states. As I mentioned, this isn’t even a red/blue state thing; it’s a swing state/non-swing-state thing. If you live in a state that reliably swings one way, not only is your vote pointless, but because the politicians know this they also do not bother paying any attention to you. This year’s election was basically about economically disadvantaged, white rust-belt voters. They decided the election and that’s where the candidates spent their time. While their votes are important, they are not the only people in the country. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/24 "2016-11-22T21:38:25Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The interstate compact doesn’t need to enter into any legal force for the individual constituent states to go this route. This would obviously never happen, though. It only makes sense for individual states if you exceed 270 EVs as a block. Otherwise, the states are simply weakening their vote even further. > [@DrCube](#): > > You say a couple of high-population states are against this arrangement, eh? Shocking! Now good luck getting the small states to give up their voice. All you have to do is convince Wyoming, Montana and those red states that they didn’t _really_ want a say in electing the president after all. Actually, about half the states currently in the compact have an _above average_ EV/capita ratio. They are certainly not all high population states. If it were simply about having a high population, gaining the necessary support would be trivial. Texas would be a huge boon, obviously. The issue is that perceived voting power is more complex than just looking at that ratio. Vermont and DC, for instance, do almost as well as Wyoming in that regard, and they’re both already part of the compact. But they’re ignored (as is Wyoming) because they have no hope of changing the results of the election. The compact would _give_ Wyoming power that they don’t currently have. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/25 "2016-11-22T21:45:43Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > The compact would _give_ Wyoming power that they don’t currently have. There’s that word again. The compact _takes power away_ from states. Under it, how your state votes is irrelevant. You could have exactly zero votes in your state for Candidate X, but under the compact, Candidate X gets _all_ the Electoral votes. There’s a reason no state has done this, and despite a handful of “signatories” to this irrelevant agreement about what might happen in the future, no state ever will. It is blatantly abdicating their responsibility to represent their citizens, and furthermore governments simply _don’t_ give power away. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/26 "2016-11-22T22:04:44Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > There’s that word again. The compact _takes power away_ from states. Under it, how your state votes is irrelevant. You could have exactly zero votes in your state for Candidate X, but under the compact, Candidate X gets _all_ the Electoral votes. You’re using the peculiarities of the current system to justify the current system. That’s weird. Why should anyone care how their state votes? They should care about whether their own vote carries weight. Not just because it’s cool for your vote to make a difference, but because votes that matter attract attention from politicians. I want politicians to compete for my vote. No politician has to give Wyoming–or Vermont, or California, or a bunch of others–more than lip service. Campaigning, advertising, policy promises and so on are worthless in these states. And this is borne out in practice. Now, it is a relevant point that the interests of the lawmakers do not quite match those of the population. Laws require lawmakers, so it is certainly possible that this never happens. Still, the support so far is promising. It will get interesting if and when a red state joins. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/27 "2016-11-22T22:16:49Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > You’re using the peculiarities of the current system to justify the current system. That’s weird. This thread is about an agreement between states to proportion their electoral votes differently. That’s not a new system. It’s a new agreement between parties under the current system. The pact says that when states with 270 electors agree, they will award their Electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, no matter how their state votes. That is taking power away from their state and giving it to the people of New York, LA, DC, Houston and Dallas. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Why should anyone care how their state votes? Why _shouldn’t_ they? Let me ask you something: Would you agree with the UN joining this compact? Are you okay with the US agreeing to participate in a war even if no US voter agreed to it, just because a bunch of Chinese people wanted to fight somebody? > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > They should care about whether their own vote carries weight. Not just because it’s cool for your vote to make a difference, but because votes that matter attract attention from politicians. I want politicians to compete for my vote. Then you better become a billionaire. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > No politician has to give Wyoming–or Vermont, or California, or a bunch of others–more than lip service. Campaigning, advertising, policy promises and so on are worthless in these states. And this is borne out in practice. So you want to exacerbate the problem by making presidential candidates campaign in five to ten large cities instead of a dozen swing states? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/28 "2016-11-22T22:47:50Z")
Because the answer to the people voting like it’s a popularity contest is to make it a popularity contest. I expect nothing but good and wondrous things, should this ever come to being. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/29 "2016-11-22T23:00:08Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Because the answer to the people voting like it’s a popularity contest is to make it a popularity contest. > > I expect nothing but good and wondrous things, should this ever come to being. I’m not a fan of this compact but don’t act like it’s somehow more noble to hold 51 popularity contests instead of one. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/30 "2016-11-22T23:05:12Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > That is taking power away from their state and giving it to the people of New York, LA, DC, Houston and Dallas. You have not articulated what power these people have that they’re giving away. They do not have the power to influence their state results, or the overall results, or even gain a modicum of attention from politicians. > [@DrCube](#): > > Why _shouldn’t_ they? Let me ask you something: Would you agree with the UN joining this compact? Are you okay with the US agreeing to participate in a war even if no US voter agreed to it, just because a bunch of Chinese people wanted to fight somebody? There are so many problems with this analogy that it’s hard to know where to start. Americans have much more common with each other than they do with other countries. To the extent there are differences, there’s no reason to believe that states are the correct granularity of division. In essentially every other political office, the popular vote is used. Governors aren’t elected by assigning EVs to counties, and mayors aren’t elected by assigning EVs to city districts. In all of these cases, it’s possible to present an argument that “why should X agree to Y even though they didn’t vote for it”, but somehow we’ve nevertheless agreed that the popular vote is fair. > [@DrCube](#): > > So you want to exacerbate the problem by making presidential candidates campaign in five to ten large cities instead of a dozen swing states? The top 5 cities in the US have a combined population of 18.9M people. The US population is 318M, making them only 6% of the total. The top 10 cities are 25.6M, or 8%. So, it’s simply false that one only has to win the major cities in a popular vote. Furthermore, to the extent the argument is true at all, the EC system is still in every way worse. “Big cities in swing states” is a smaller set than “big cities in all states.” ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/31 "2016-11-22T23:12:21Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I’m not a fan of this compact but don’t act like it’s somehow more noble to hold 51 popularity contests instead of one. A dozen-ish popularity contests. Which is why elections can be decided on esoteric local issues like trade relations with Cuba, and where the positions may be opposite of the interests of the population as a whole. All elections are popularity contests. It would be nice if candidates focused on items of national interest instead of just a few small pockets in swing states. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/32 "2016-11-23T00:25:34Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > A dozen-ish popularity contests. Which is why elections can be decided on esoteric local issues like trade relations with Cuba, and where the positions may be opposite of the interests of the population as a whole. > > All elections are popularity contests. It would be nice if candidates focused on items of national interest instead of just a few small pockets in swing states. You mean to tell me that you don’t think ethanol subsidies are a matter of national importance? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/33 "2016-11-23T00:52:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You mean to tell me that you don’t think ethanol subsidies are a matter of national importance? They’re certainly a good example of bribing a few states with subsidies at the expense of the entire rest of the country, and using dodgy environmentalism as cover. I guess it’s of national importance in that respect. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/34 "2016-11-23T02:32:54Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > The top 5 cities in the US have a combined population of 18.9M people. The US population is 318M, making them only 6% of the total. The top 10 cities are 25.6M, or 8%. So, it’s simply false that one only has to win the major cities in a popular vote. You really need to go either by county or by metro-area to get a better picture of that distribution. Defining “cities” by using their strictly literal city limit boundaries isn’t really useful in this context. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/35 "2016-11-23T02:40:11Z")
For example, the top 5 [Metropolitan Statistical Areas](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas) add up to more like (roughly) 56 million. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/36 "2016-11-23T02:56:10Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > You really need to go either by county or by metro-area to get a better picture of that distribution. Defining “cities” by using their strictly literal city limit boundaries isn’t really useful in this context. **DrCube** was trying to make an argument that politicians could stop in a handful of places and win the election. If you want to argue that the 20M in the “New York” statistical area is a more relevant figure, then fine–but you then have to acknowledge that the area covers _four states_. “Chicago” covers three states. “LA” is within one state, but might as well be a few based on both area and population. These top 3 areas cover 8 states total and yet still only hit 13% of the US population. The hit-and-run argument still fails. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/37 "2016-11-23T03:17:36Z")
Getting back to the OP, I see the problem is two-fold: 1. Swing states, under the current system, are the recipients of lavish spending (both in terms of time and actual $$$) by the campaigns. They’d have to be willing to give all that up to adopt the NPVIC. It seems unlikely that there’s anything of comparable value this deal would offer the Floridas and Nevadas of the country. 2. Red states probably perceive a bit of a political advantage to the Electoral College system, having had the last two splits go their way. I don’t know how you’d convince Texas or Idaho that it’s in their (Republican-aligned) interest to change the current system. What’s left? Deep blue states that normally get ignored by the candidates and perceive some potential political advantage to switching to a popular-vote scheme. I typed all of the above without looking up which states had actually joined the compact. Now I’ve done that and it looks like I was pretty spot on: NPVIC has been adopted by MD, NJ, IL, HI, WA, MA, DC (not technically a state, but yeah), VT, CA, RI, and NY. BTW, what’s the legality of non-state entities like DC joining an “InterSTATE” compact? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/38 "2016-11-23T03:25:29Z")
Just looking at [Nate Silver’s “snake” chart](http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#stateorder), it looks like the next-best prospects for passage would be CT, DE, OR, or NM. ME and MN are looking more like swing-states after the last election, and can probably anticipate some juicy campaign spending in 2020 under the current system, so perhaps it’s going to be tougher there. ---
**Author:** ![OriginalGangster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea5d25/32.png) [@OriginalGangster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OriginalGangster)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/39 "2016-11-23T03:27:53Z")
It’s set up in a way so it will never happen. Reaching the 270 is impossible because of the “red” states. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is nothing more than conversation piece ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729/40 "2016-11-23T04:14:50Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > BTW, what’s the legality of non-state entities like DC joining an “InterSTATE” compact? DC approval of this idea would be subject to congressional review. We know how that will turn out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-convincing-states-to-join/772729.md?page=3)