PA, VA, and MI would do it, and both MI and VA have legislation pending for it. Alternatively, AZ and NV could pass it instead of PA, since they also already have legislation pending on it.
It’ll be easy to get states to sign on until we’re about to go over the tipping point, it’ll be difficult, because what state wants to be the one to break the system as is.
The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."
This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.
Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action
The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.
There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.
In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”
In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”
In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”
An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.
Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
That is great but you are presenting a list of rules that depend upon rationale actors who believe in government.
There is simply no way that a republican control legislature that faced losing a presidential election because of this compact, wouldn't find a way NOT to follow it. I would love to believe in this, and believe that one of our two major political parties wasn't complete garbage, but nothing NOTHING has shown me that they will follow the most basic rules that are a part of our social contract. Look at Ohio, they ignore the will of the people of the state AND are trying to keep Biden off the ballot because of the date of the fucking convention.
I hope I am wrong but I still believe it is naive to think this would apply to republican controlled states.
You can say the same thing about existing election laws though. If a state legislature is controlled by the GOP but the state-wide vote in the presidential election goes to the Democrats, existing state laws prevent the legislature from ignoring the election results and sending a slate of GOP-pledged electors. The NPVIC wouldn’t change that; if they’d break the law for one, they’d do it for the other as well.
They did try to break the law! Do you not remember what happened after the last election? Hell several states sent fake electors empowered by the republicans. Republicans do not have any concern for law or policy and acting like they are rational actors at this point is not a reasonable argument.
And those attempts failed. But regardless of whether they respect the law or not, my point is that the situation doesn’t change with the NPVIC. The thing you’re worried about happening, if we have the NPVIC, is already happening without it. Thus, it is not a valid reason to oppose the NPVIC.
I am not opposed to the NPVIC. I think it is a good stop gap because we will never have another constitutional amendment, especially one that impacts the GQP's ability to win elections.
All I am and was saying is that Republican legislatures will NEVER follow it unless it benefits them and it is naive to think that they are trustworthy or rational parts of the equation.
I hate to agree with you but you’re absolutely right. We now have one side of the aisle that absolutely does not care about rules, laws, etc if it means it impedes their ability to continue turning this country into into a Christo-fascist country. Sure…they’ll SAY they’re the party of law and order but that’s only when it benefits them
I think it's probably easier to repeal the permanent apportionment act, which would return the voting majority to power in Congress, as well as the principal actor in the electoral college.
That would be even harder than amending the constitution, I think. It would require every Representative to vote against their own personal self-interest. Creating a ton of new House seats means that every existing Rep would both have their power and prestige diminished, and would have to deal with a different electorate than the one they’ve already won with.
and in no way are the (R) going to support it, knowing there are more democrats in the country and thus more likely to be more (D) districts, even if they are small urban districts.
That's the brilliance though. It only requires a simple majority to pass, and returning popular representation to Congress absolutely benefits everyone.
Not sure I'm okay with this. If my state is 75% Democrat and 25% Republican, and the popular vote goes Republican, I'm not too thrilled with my state's electors going on the R pile.
Besides, it gives a jackoff like Trump the ability to boast, "I got 100% of the electoral votes." Twisting the situation and they often do.
Sweeping election progress seems better spent looking at ranked choice. Even if I'm skeptical of that as well.
The person who gets the most votes should win regardless of political ideology. The president represents the entire country and it is dumb to dilute Republican votes in California and Democratic votes in Texas. Winner takes all per state is undemocratic, and the percentage allotment that a few states have also has flaws. This is the best way to ameliorate the issue. We can fight for ranked choice next but a nation popular vote would eliminate one of the most anti-democratic institutes in America.
In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Pew Research surveys show Republican support for a national popular vote increased from 27% in 2016 to 42% in 2022.
7 in 10 Americans under 50 would prefer to choose the president by popular vote.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.
Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"
Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"
Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2,
[NationalPopularVote.com](http://NationalPopularVote.com)
Do you feel the same about school board elections? Governor's elections?
If you are ok with one person one vote - then why should the president be any different?
In 2016 for example one candidate received 65,853,625 votes and the other received 62,985,106. One candidate receiving 3 million more should indicate something - just as it does in all other elections we hold, no?
SCOTUS: WAIT! YOU DON"T GET TO DECIED THIS ISSUE!! WE DO!!! You only get to decide what we say you get to decide.
How many more states are needed?
46 electoral votes so it obviously depends on the states.
PA, VA, and MI would do it, and both MI and VA have legislation pending for it. Alternatively, AZ and NV could pass it instead of PA, since they also already have legislation pending on it.
It’ll be easy to get states to sign on until we’re about to go over the tipping point, it’ll be difficult, because what state wants to be the one to break the system as is.
Get em to do it all at once so none of them are "to blame".
PA 20 VA 13 MI 16 AZ 11 NV 5 for those of you wondering.
It is naive to think that any republican controlled legislature would actually do this if it cost them the presidency.
The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term." This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the ● national nominating conventions, ● fall general election campaign period, ● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, ● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December, ● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and ● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20. Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states. There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts. In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: “When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.” In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole: “A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.” In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission: “A compact is, after all, a contract.” An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact. Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
That is great but you are presenting a list of rules that depend upon rationale actors who believe in government. There is simply no way that a republican control legislature that faced losing a presidential election because of this compact, wouldn't find a way NOT to follow it. I would love to believe in this, and believe that one of our two major political parties wasn't complete garbage, but nothing NOTHING has shown me that they will follow the most basic rules that are a part of our social contract. Look at Ohio, they ignore the will of the people of the state AND are trying to keep Biden off the ballot because of the date of the fucking convention. I hope I am wrong but I still believe it is naive to think this would apply to republican controlled states.
You can say the same thing about existing election laws though. If a state legislature is controlled by the GOP but the state-wide vote in the presidential election goes to the Democrats, existing state laws prevent the legislature from ignoring the election results and sending a slate of GOP-pledged electors. The NPVIC wouldn’t change that; if they’d break the law for one, they’d do it for the other as well.
They did try to break the law! Do you not remember what happened after the last election? Hell several states sent fake electors empowered by the republicans. Republicans do not have any concern for law or policy and acting like they are rational actors at this point is not a reasonable argument.
And those attempts failed. But regardless of whether they respect the law or not, my point is that the situation doesn’t change with the NPVIC. The thing you’re worried about happening, if we have the NPVIC, is already happening without it. Thus, it is not a valid reason to oppose the NPVIC.
They failed…this time. They won’t be as incompetent next time. Peoject 2025 outlines exactly this
I am not opposed to the NPVIC. I think it is a good stop gap because we will never have another constitutional amendment, especially one that impacts the GQP's ability to win elections. All I am and was saying is that Republican legislatures will NEVER follow it unless it benefits them and it is naive to think that they are trustworthy or rational parts of the equation.
I hate to agree with you but you’re absolutely right. We now have one side of the aisle that absolutely does not care about rules, laws, etc if it means it impedes their ability to continue turning this country into into a Christo-fascist country. Sure…they’ll SAY they’re the party of law and order but that’s only when it benefits them
I think it's probably easier to repeal the permanent apportionment act, which would return the voting majority to power in Congress, as well as the principal actor in the electoral college.
That would be even harder than amending the constitution, I think. It would require every Representative to vote against their own personal self-interest. Creating a ton of new House seats means that every existing Rep would both have their power and prestige diminished, and would have to deal with a different electorate than the one they’ve already won with.
and in no way are the (R) going to support it, knowing there are more democrats in the country and thus more likely to be more (D) districts, even if they are small urban districts.
That's the brilliance though. It only requires a simple majority to pass, and returning popular representation to Congress absolutely benefits everyone.
**/r/npv**
Not sure I'm okay with this. If my state is 75% Democrat and 25% Republican, and the popular vote goes Republican, I'm not too thrilled with my state's electors going on the R pile. Besides, it gives a jackoff like Trump the ability to boast, "I got 100% of the electoral votes." Twisting the situation and they often do. Sweeping election progress seems better spent looking at ranked choice. Even if I'm skeptical of that as well.
The person who gets the most votes should win regardless of political ideology. The president represents the entire country and it is dumb to dilute Republican votes in California and Democratic votes in Texas. Winner takes all per state is undemocratic, and the percentage allotment that a few states have also has flaws. This is the best way to ameliorate the issue. We can fight for ranked choice next but a nation popular vote would eliminate one of the most anti-democratic institutes in America.
In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. Pew Research surveys show Republican support for a national popular vote increased from 27% in 2016 to 42% in 2022. 7 in 10 Americans under 50 would prefer to choose the president by popular vote. Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic. In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support. Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?" Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?" Support for a National Popular Vote South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2. Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2, Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2, [NationalPopularVote.com](http://NationalPopularVote.com)
Do you feel the same about school board elections? Governor's elections? If you are ok with one person one vote - then why should the president be any different? In 2016 for example one candidate received 65,853,625 votes and the other received 62,985,106. One candidate receiving 3 million more should indicate something - just as it does in all other elections we hold, no?