# The proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 3, 2018, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797 "2018-01-03T14:23:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**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:** [January 3, 2018, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/21 "2018-01-03T17:17:08Z")
> [@Anny\_Middon](#): > > If I understand correctly, and I’m not certain I do, the EC is set up in the US Constitution, but states determine how to allocate their EC votes. > > What if, rather than entering the NPVIC, there was a huge push to get states to allocate EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in their state. ISTM this would be a fairly easy sell – most voters have lived through a situation where their vote for POTUS really didn’t mean anything since their state’s EC votes went to another candidate. If enough states did this, there would be only a small chance that the EC wouldn’t reflect the popular vote. If that chance essentially went to 0, I could see a nonpartisan push to amend he Constitution to eliminate the EC as being superfluous and costly. The thing is that EVs include Senate representation. This comparatively overvalues small states, and undervalues big states. Just because you split the EVs proportionally according to each state, the overvaluation of small states would still exist. So you probably end up with more or less the same result if everyone did it that way. or to put it a different way… > **[Under A New System, Clinton Could Have Won The Popular Vote By 5 Points And...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/under-a-new-system-clinton-could-have-won-the-popular-vote-by-5-points-and-still-lost/)** > > Virginia’s House of Delegates has taken the first step toward awarding the state’s electoral votes proportionally, rather than via the current winner-take-all s… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/22 "2018-01-03T17:19:57Z")
Coupla things: 1. There are already a bunch of interstate compacts. [Here’s some.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact) 2. This isn’t actually one. Each state is acting individually. 3. It isn’t a proposal anymore - [it’s already a long way toward enactment.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) Over 30% of the EC is represented in states that have already passed it, and bills are pending for 25% more. As soon as the total breaks 50%, we have a national popular vote, like a civilized democracy. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/23 "2018-01-03T17:28:50Z")
Since each state has the authority to allocate their EVs as they see fit, it’s hard to see (though IANAL) any argument that this isn’t Constitutional. There’s no actual interstate agreement or compact (whatever the name used) – it’s individual states deciding how to allocate their EVs, even if that decision is partially based on the actions of other states. If I say “I’m going to order chocolate unless Bob orders vanilla”, I don’t have an agreement or compact about ice cream with Bob… I’m just deciding, on my own, what flavor to choose, and that decision is based on Bob’s actions. Bob doesn’t even have to know about my decision-making process. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/24 "2018-01-03T17:30:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > On the contrary, every voter’s influence would be exactly the same – 1 vote. A voter in Illinois would have just as much influence as a voter from Texas or California or Rhode Island, and vice versa. Every single American would have the exact same influence on who becomes President in terms of voting power. Right now, it’s heavily skewed towards swing states and small states – a voter in Iowa has much, much more influence on who becomes President than a voter in California. What problem are you actually trying to fix? Do you want an actual nationwide popular vote for President, or do you want to modify the EC? It would be just as time consuming to push for state-by-state legislation allowing the federal government to hold a national election for electing a President. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/25 "2018-01-03T17:36:31Z")
I think the part that makes it a compact is that it doesn’t go into effect until it’s passed by a bunch of states. It’s fine for a state to say “We’ll assign our electoral votes according to the nationwide popular vote”, but it requires Congressional approval to say “we’ll assign our electoral votes according to the nationwide popular vote, as long as enough other states also do the same thing”. > [@](#): > > Quoth **Anny Middon** : > > What if, rather than entering the NPVIC, there was a huge push to get states to allocate EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in their state. ISTM this would be a fairly easy sell – most voters have lived through a situation where their vote for POTUS really didn’t mean anything since their state’s EC votes went to another candidate. If enough states did this, there would be only a small chance that the EC wouldn’t reflect the popular vote. If that chance essentially went to 0, I could see a nonpartisan push to amend he Constitution to eliminate the EC as being superfluous and costly. This could also be done, but would only really work if _everyone_, all 50 states, implemented it at once. When you’re in an environment where other states assign their electors winner-takes-all, if you start assigning yours proportionately, then it just dilutes your influence. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/26 "2018-01-03T17:38:28Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > What problem are you actually trying to fix? Do you want an actual nationwide popular vote for President, or do you want to modify the EC? It would be just as time consuming to push for state-by-state legislation allowing the federal government to hold a national election for electing a President. I want a nationwide popular vote. This proposal doesn’t do that exactly, but it pushes us much closer towards that goal, and effectively results in every voter, regardless of what state they live in, having the same influence on who becomes President. Thus I support this proposal over the status quo, even if my ultimate preference would be a Constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College and instituting a national popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/27 "2018-01-03T17:40:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **doorhinge** : > > What problem are you actually trying to fix? Do you want an actual nationwide popular vote for President, or do you want to modify the EC? It would be just as time consuming to push for state-by-state legislation allowing the federal government to hold a national election for electing a President. Both, of course. We want an actual nationwide popular vote for President, and the easiest way to get that is through this compact. State-by-state legislation wouldn’t allow the federal government to hold a national election, and I’m not sure where you get the idea that it would: That would take a constitutional amendment, which is really difficult. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/28 "2018-01-03T17:42:28Z")
> [@Anny\_Middon](#): > > If I understand correctly, and I’m not certain I do, the EC is set up in the US Constitution, but states determine how to allocate their EC votes. > > What if, rather than entering the NPVIC, there was a huge push to get states to allocate EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in their state. ISTM this would be a fairly easy sell – most voters have lived through a situation where their vote for POTUS really didn’t mean anything since their state’s EC votes went to another candidate. If enough states did this, there would be only a small chance that the EC wouldn’t reflect the popular vote. If that chance essentially went to 0, I could see a nonpartisan push to amend he Constitution to eliminate the EC as being superfluous and costly. States won’t do that, at least not one-at-a-time, because they’ll get essentially ignored by the major party campaigns. Imagine if you’re a swing state today. You get candidate visits, campaign spending, advertising dollars all flowing into your state. If you pass a law that says, rather than winner-take-all we’re going to apportion our EC votes by popular vote share, all that goes away. The candidates aren’t going to come visit, they’re not going to spend advertising dollars, they’re not going to hire campaign workers in your state, at least, not like they used to. Now, on the flip side, imagine you’re a strongly partisan state, either red or blue. Today, you don’t get many visits or much campaign spending, but you’re a reliable X EC votes for your preferred candidate. If you decide to apportion them by popular vote, you’ve just deprived your candidate of those sure-fire votes. Imagine the disaster it would be for Democrats if California did this. Instead of 55 EC votes for HRC, Trump would have received 17 of California’s EC votes. Actually, I’ve got an idea for a voter initiative … gotta run. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/29 "2018-01-03T17:47:45Z")
_I’m very impressed with my political foresight._🙂 - During the 2016 campaign I kept insisting that Trump was hoping to lose. [This has been vividly confirmed.](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html) - I begged the Democrats to replace Clinton with Biden; Dopers scoffed that I didn’t know how primaries work. [We now know that the head of the DNC was pursuing the same idea.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brazile-i-considered-replacing-clinton-with-biden-as-2016-democratic-nominee/2017/11/04/f0b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.5cae65bfef43) - I insisted that Pennsylvania was the key swing state. Dopers laughed almost unanimously: PA was a lock for the Dems. It seems the Clinton campaign agreed with Dopers. How’d that work out for all y’all? _ **And I tell you now that if NPVIC goes into effect there is a slight but non-zero chance it will result in a tragedy** _ that will dwarf the electoral mischief in 2000. Go ahead — Laugh at me once more. Let’s be clear. I do _not_ oppose the idea of popular vote for President. I oppose this bastardized form, which will retain the worst features of EC, AND the bad features of popular vote, AND give great opportunity for mischief and litigation. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/30 "2018-01-03T17:57:53Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I think the part that makes it a compact is that it doesn’t go into effect until it’s passed by a bunch of states. It’s fine for a state to say “We’ll assign our electoral votes according to the nationwide popular vote”, but it requires Congressional approval to say “we’ll assign our electoral votes according to the nationwide popular vote, as long as enough other states also do the same thing”. > This could also be done, but would only really work if _everyone_, all 50 states, implemented it at once. When you’re in an environment where other states assign their electors winner-takes-all, if you start assigning yours proportionately, then it just dilutes your influence. Also, that leads to the discussion of how do you proportion the EVs – because using Congressional Districts as happens today in ME and NE, that leads to vulnerability to gerrymandering and urban packing. And with the lesser-population states madatorily fixed at 3 EVs (and thus forced to remain WTA under the ME/NE system) you will lack granularity at the lower end, still multiplying their relative weight. Myself, I favor an actual honest-to-goodness Popular Vote, or else a distributed EV so long as it is protected from the gerrymander. But this sort of “cunning plan” doesn’t convince me. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/31 "2018-01-03T18:03:29Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > States won’t do that, at least not one-at-a-time, because they’ll get essentially ignored by the major party campaigns. Hardly. States that are currently clinched, which is the majority of them, don’t get any special attention at all. The resources go into a small handful of swing states. With a national popular vote, the candidates will go where the people are, which is everywhere, including California and Texas. Limits on time and money will send them mostly to the cities, not the rural areas, certainly, and you’ll see more national TV advertising, appealing to the full spectrum of voters, and less targeted local advertising featuring local pandering. How is that not good for democracy? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/32 "2018-01-03T18:08:44Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Hardly. States that are currently clinched, which is the majority of them, don’t get any special attention at all. The resources go into a small handful of swing states. With a national popular vote, the candidates will go where the people are, which is everywhere, including California and Texas. Limits on time and money will send them mostly to the cities, not the rural areas, certainly, and you’ll see more national TV advertising, appealing to the full spectrum of voters, and less targeted local advertising featuring local pandering. How is that not good for democracy? I think it’s GREAT for democracy, and California should, as they do with all good ideas, lead the way. Perhaps New York as well, to give us an east-coast example to follow too. Let’s try it for an election or two and see how it works out. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/33 "2018-01-03T18:12:45Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > though personally I wonder if that may run afoul of the “guarantee a republican form of government” clause of the Constitution, as having a government decide an election in opposition to the actual vote is pretty damn un-republican. Thank God that would never happen in America. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/34 "2018-01-03T18:20:27Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > _ **And I tell you now that if NPVIC goes into effect there is a slight but non-zero chance it will result in a tragedy** _ that will dwarf the electoral mischief in 2000. Go ahead — Laugh at me once more. Look, the EC overruling the popular vote has already given us GWB and Trump, the two worst Presidents since the antebellum era. How many more of these episodes can we take? We’re well beyond ‘slight but nonzero’ chance of disastrous outcomes of the present system. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/35 "2018-01-03T18:23:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think it’s GREAT for democracy, and California should, as they do with all good ideas, lead the way. Perhaps New York as well, to give us an east-coast example to follow too. Let’s try it for an election or two and see how it works out. No state enacts the change until there are enough to determine the winner. What are you on about? If you have a reasoned, non-partisan objection to going to a national popular vote, what is it? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/36 "2018-01-03T18:26:15Z")
Absolutely the only people who want this to happen are people who get all upset when their candidate loses the election despite the plurality of voters voting for them. Which, as noted in the OP, many of us consider to be a desired feature of the way the system was set up. If you’re upset about how the EC plays out, work to have your state join Nebraska and Maine in distributing electors on a proportional basis of some sort. States have that right without engaging in weird, undemocratic compacts like that proposed. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/37 "2018-01-03T18:32:24Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Which, as noted in the OP, many of us consider to be a desired feature of the way the system was set up. I know you desire it, but it would help the debate to explain \*why \*you desire some people’s power to exceed others’, rather than let a less reputable inference persist. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/38 "2018-01-03T18:42:42Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Absolutely the only people who want this to happen are people who get all upset when their candidate loses the election despite the plurality of voters voting for them. Which, as noted in the OP, many of us consider to be a desired feature of the way the system was set up. Calling a bug a feature doesn’t make it one, but whatever. > [@](#): > > If you’re upset about how the EC plays out, work to have your state join Nebraska and Maine in distributing electors on a proportional basis of some sort. Already addressed by **Ravenman** in post #21. > [@](#): > > States have that right without engaging in weird, undemocratic compacts like that proposed. Call the proposed compact ‘weird’ if you want, but no weirder than applying the label ‘undemocratic’ to a plan to always put the popular vote winner in the White House. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/39 "2018-01-03T18:43:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No state enacts the change until there are enough to determine the winner. What are you on about? > > If you have a reasoned, non-partisan objection to going to a national popular vote, what is it? You apparently missed the fact that my post was a response to **Anny Middon** ’s proposal: > [@Anny\_Middon](#): > > … What if, rather than entering the NPVIC, there was a huge push to get states to allocate EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in their state. … I’m all for it, I just want to start the huge push in California. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/40 "2018-01-03T18:53:09Z")
Okay, why is it better for the country to do it in California instead of Texas, if you are in fact interested in a serious discussion? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797.md?page=3)