The recent midterm elections have given Democrats a significant opportunity to rethink how presidential elections are conducted in the U.S. They are rallying behind the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which aims to ensure that the national popular vote winner secures the majority of electoral votes.
This compact would technically maintain the Electoral College, yet it allows states to allocate their electoral votes to the nationwide winner instead of the individual state victor. This means states participating in the compact could vote differently than their local outcomes suggest.
The compact becomes effective when the participating states collectively hold at least 270 electoral votes, the threshold required to win the presidency. Currently, 18 states and Washington, D.C., have endorsed it, contributing 222 electoral votes—just a few more are needed.
In the recent elections, Democrats have gained control in key states like Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which together contribute 50 electoral votes. Should these states join the compact, the total could rise to 272.
Arizona, with an additional 11 electoral votes, also appears to be leaning Democratic, possibly pushing the compact to 283 electoral votes if included. However, past Democratic control has not always translated into compact passage; Michigan, for instance, did not join in 2023-24 despite holding a trifecta.
Concerns about the compact remain, especially since past attempts have faced obstacles. Nevada’s former governor, Steve Sisolak, vetoed the proposal in 2019, highlighting potential issues regarding state influence in elections.
Even if enough states agree to the compact, legal challenges could arise. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 permits states to choose electors in any manner they see fit, which supporters interpret as allowing national vote-based allocations.
However, critics argue that the Constitution’s Compact Clause may necessitate congressional consent for such agreements. A Democratic-controlled Congress would still need to navigate this complex issue, as President Trump could veto any legislation requiring congressional approval.
The implications are significant; both George W. Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016 won the presidency despite losing the national popular vote. If the compact is successfully enacted, it could fundamentally change how future presidential elections are contested, potentially even in non-participating states.
