# 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:** 4
**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, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/61 "2018-01-03T21:17:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Glad to see you know how to spell. :rolleyes: \*Definition \*is the problem, though. You already said, “OK, suit yourself, it’s a compact.” So that point’s settled. It’s a compact. > [@](#): > > So we’re done, right? Yeppers. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/62 "2018-01-03T21:55:19Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > OK, feel free to summarize their arguments here. > [@Chronos](#): > > What explanation is needed beyond quoting Article 1, section 10? The issue, I think, is [_Virginia v. Tennessee_ (1893)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/148/503/case.html), which dealt with the border between the two states. Based on a quick read, the Court reasoned: 1. Taken at its extreme, the section would ban _any_ agreement between two states with Congressional approval, such as an agreement to purchase property or contracting for services. (Or draining a swamp, in an example that I’m not sure I follow). This can’t be what the Constitution intends since it would burden congress and/or prevent the states from coordinating in emergencies. 2. If it doesn’t mean that, then we need to consider the terms in their context (apply the cannon of Noscitur a sociis). 3. Doing so, we conclude that Congressional approval is only required for “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.” Whether or not the NPVIC is such an agreement is where the debate would be. ---
**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, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/63 "2018-01-03T22:08:53Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You already said, “OK, suit yourself, it’s a compact.” For the purpose of actually discussing the point with you, my hopes of which are now dashed. Your concession is inferred and accepted. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Where are those lawyers when you need them? Right next to the guns and money. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/64 "2018-01-03T22:09:42Z")
In my experience, a SCOTUS case rarely rests simply on how the current justices interpret one sentence in a 120-year-old case. ---
**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:** [January 3, 2018, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/65 "2018-01-03T22:24:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In my experience, a SCOTUS case rarely rests simply on how the current justices interpret one sentence in a 120-year-old case. The point is that the clause has not been interpreted in a strong way for all those years. There must have been thousands of small agreements between states in since then, none of which required Congressional approval because they don’t encroach on Federal supremacy. So the question is whether NPVIC does this or not. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/66 "2018-01-03T22:30:54Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > The point is that the clause has not been interpreted in a strong way for all those years. There must have been thousands of small agreements between states in since then, none of which required Congressional approval because they don’t encroach on Federal supremacy. So the question is whether NPVIC does this or not. I understood the point; I just think it’s absurdly simplistic. If this ever comes into play, there will be dozens of lawsuits with the highest priced lawyers you can imagine. They will bring up every legal concept, new and old, that they can think of. And this is not a “small agreement”. It will have been the mother of all agreements, to borrow a phrase. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/67 "2018-01-03T22:31:20Z")
All I know is that if a state were honestly serious about this, they would independently apportion their EVs based on the popular vote winner and not need a compact for it. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/68 "2018-01-03T22:34:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Don’t know what this has to do with anything. A national popular vote for President (whether enacted through Constitutional amendment or through the process this thread suggests) wouldn’t affect state governments. Yes it would. > [@](#): > > Whatever this is referring to (and I’m not sure what it has to do with my posts) doesn’t appear to have anything to do with this thread’s topic. Why not extend your concept which you are so strongly in favor for internationally? Why dissolve the concept of states’ rights and not nations’? Try to reason through the implications of your arguments. ---
**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:** [January 3, 2018, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/69 "2018-01-03T22:49:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > They will bring up every legal concept, new and old, that they can think of. And this is not a “small agreement”. It will have been the mother of all agreements, to borrow a phrase. Sure. **Chronos** asked why anything was needed beyond quoting Article 1, Section 10, and **RTFirefly** made the _argument ad spellium_ of writing out C-O-M-P-A-C-T. The point is just that the NPVIC, despite having _compact_ in the name, is not necessarily a compact for the purposes of Article 1, Section 10. But then, maybe it is. Lawyers will fight it out. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/70 "2018-01-03T22:53:03Z")
I also think the idea that this compact is heading for success is also pretty simplistic, given the states that have signed on so far. Here they are, with their ratio of votes for Obama : Romney in 2012 (to keep the Trump mess out of it): 1 Maryland 62% : 36% 2 New Jersey 58% : 41% 3 Illinois 58% : 41% 4 Hawaii 71% : 28% 5 Washington 56% : 41% 6 Massachusetts 61% : 38% 7 District of Columbia 91% : 7.3% 8 Vermont 67% : 31% 9 California 60% : 37% 10 Rhode Island 63% : 35% 11 New York 63% : 35 % That’s an average of 62% : 36% (leaving out DC because it’s an outlier and so small). Your typical state that goes for this is a ~2:1 Democrat state. It may get CT, DE, and ME. That’s 11 more EC votes, bringing the total to 176. I’m not sure where the rest of the 94 EC votes are supposed to come from. **Dr. Strangelove:** My post was in response to **Falchion’s** post #62. ---
**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:** [January 3, 2018, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/71 "2018-01-03T22:53:37Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > All I know is that if a state were honestly serious about this, they would independently apportion their EVs based on the popular vote winner and not need a compact for it. That’s absurd. Just one state doing this, or a handful, achieves nothing and only weakens a state’s power. The whole point to the compact is that it’s all-or-nothing; it behaves as the current system until a threshold is met, and then it behaves as a true popular vote. There is never any intermediate system that’s worse than either approach. ---
**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:** [January 3, 2018, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/72 "2018-01-03T22:57:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Dr. Strangelove:** My post was in response to **Falchion’s** post #62. Who was responding to **Chronos** ’s post #55. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/73 "2018-01-03T23:02:14Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Who was responding to **Chronos** ’s post #55. Yeah, but I was responding only the **Falchion**. His post can stand by itself. I’m just explaining my post, and why I’m not planning on arguing with you any further. 🆒 ---
**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:** [January 3, 2018, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/74 "2018-01-03T23:12:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yeah, but I was responding only the **Falchion**. His post can stand by itself. I’m just explaining my post, and why I’m not planning on arguing with you any further. 🆒 If you aren’t taking the context of **Falchion** ’s post into account, then you’re responding to the wrong thing. It was never claimed that SCOTUS would take that case into account, just that it established the principle that Article 1, Section 10 cannot possibly cover _all_ agreements or compacts between states. Incidentally, the states in which at least one state house (upper or lower) passed the compact cover 285 EVs. That’s at least a little encouraging–there is some degree of support even in places like Oklahoma. Still some work to be done, though. ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/75 "2018-01-03T23:28:42Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Yes it would. Whatever. Not interested in rote contradiction. > [@](#): > > Why not extend your concept which you are so strongly in favor for internationally? Why dissolve the concept of states’ rights and not nations’? Try to reason through the implications of your arguments. Where did I suggest dissolving the concept of states’ rights? ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/76 "2018-01-03T23:37:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As soon as the total breaks 50%, we have a national popular vote, like a civilized democracy. As a point of order, well actually more of an emphatic rebuttal, there are more than a few democracies, civilised democracies, long standing stable civilised democracies, who don’t use a raw popular election count to determine their head of state, head of government or both. I can name a whole hat full of less than stable, less than civilised or less than long standing democracies who do. American exceptionalism just keeps putting you unnecessarily in less than stellar company. Would looking how most of your global peers do it be that much of a kick in the patoot? ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/77 "2018-01-03T23:53:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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. Not necessarily. If the margin is large and national then the influence of the smaller than average states is reduced. But if things get tight and differentiated (which is probably closer to the norm), then if you were a red state looking at garnering blue influence (or vice versa) then offering them the chance to win some of your EC votes rather than zero even if the state splits 51:49 would have to be some incentive. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/78 "2018-01-04T00:25:48Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > As a point of order, well actually more of an emphatic rebuttal, there are more than a few democracies, civilised democracies, long standing stable civilised democracies, who don’t use a raw popular election count to determine their head of state, head of government or both. Can you name any where the loser wins? ---
**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 4, 2018, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/79 "2018-01-04T00:30:52Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > 1. Doing so, we conclude that Congressional approval is only required for “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.” Here are a few compacts that have been approved by Congress: > **[Driver License Compact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact)** > > The Driver License Compact is an agreement between states in the United States of America. The compact is used to exchange data between motorist's home state and a state where the motorist incurred a vehicular violation. Not all states are members, and states respond to the data differently. > The Driver License Compact, a framework setting out the basis of a series of laws within adopting states in the United States (as well as similar reciprocal agreements in adopting provinces of Canada), gives... > **[Tahoe Regional Planning Agency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahoe_Regional_Planning_Agency)** > > The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) was formed in 1969 through a bi-state compact between California and Nevada which was ratified by the U.S. Congress. The agency is mandated to protect the environment of the Lake Tahoe basin through land-use regulations and is one of only a few watershed-based regulatory agencies in the United States. > TRPA and its mission are one-of-a-kind and represent an unprecedented attempt to address environmental, economic and cultural values at both regional and ... > **[Education Commission of the States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Commission_of_the_States)** > > The Education Commission of the States (ECS) is a nonprofit that tracks educational policy. It is led by over 300 appointed commissioners from across the United States. ECS was founded as a result of the creation of the Compact for Education, an interstate compact approved by Congress and works with all 50 U.S. states, three territories (American Samoa, Guam and Northern Mariana Islands) and the District of Columbia. > The idea of establishing a compact on education and creating an operational arm... If these compacts interfere or encroach on Federal supremacy, I’m not seeing it. Meanwhile, the NPVIC would substantially alter the power of states outside of the compact, in that their electoral votes (which are guaranteed by the Constitution) would be rendered irrelevant. Every American would cast a vote for President, but it is really only the electoral votes of a fraction of the of states that would actually determine the winner in every subsequent election. Why? To make sure that a candidate who would have won the electoral vote but lose the popular vote does not become president. I think the very substantial alteration of power among the states warrants congressional approval, regardless of the findings in that particular case you cited. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/80 "2018-01-04T00:33:48Z")
Again, this whole discussion is predicated upon the assumption made by the losers in each of the four presidential contests where the elected President received less than a plurality of the votes (ignoring 1824, where six states didn’t even have voting), that there is something inherently “wrong” with that type of outcome. The main argument offered for this assertion is an inherently emotional one: it doesn’t feel like real democracy when this happens. **IF** you truly feel this is the case, then you really should put your money (so to speak) where your mouth is. If California has 55% of its individual votes cast for Candidate A, and 44% for Candidate B (with the other 1% cast for third-party and/or write-in candidates), and you truly believe in the idea that voters should not be disenfranchised in the national result simply for being on the wrong side locally, then you should be in favor of apportioning California’s electoral votes on a close to 55% to 45% basis. If you don’t want to do that, then your desire to have EVERYONE join in a compact to do it means you are simply searching for a way that your guy can win under circumstances similar to 2000 and 2016. Now here’s the real trouble with the proposal: what does the mass of states in the “compact” do when either a state, or an elector, becomes faithless, and ignores the requirements of the “compact”? What enforcement mechanism do you propose will apply? I foresee very little that could be done in that instance to enforce the purported compact. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797.md?page=5)