National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is a thing some U.S. states and the District of Columbia have said together they will all do together. The NPVIC changes how the Electoral College chooses the president of the United States. The states agree to give all their votes in the Electoral College to the person with the most votes from regular people in the whole country. The agreement makes sure the person with the most votes from regular people will become president. When the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can really make that happen, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will start working.

Now, 17 states and the District of Columbia are in the agreement. Together, they have 209 votes in the Electoral College, which are called "electoral votes". When the agreement has 270 electoral votes, it will start working. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is also pending in 5 states. That means 5 states are thinking about passing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Those 5 states have 50 electoral votes.

How the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact works
The NPVIC is an deal between the states. It will start working when its members control most of the Electoral College. Before that happens, the members will give their electoral votes the way they do now. After that, they will give all their electoral votes to the person with the most votes from Americans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. (That person wins the "popular vote".) This way, that person will become president.

The U.S. Constitution lets state legislatures decide how to give their votes in the Electoral College. It says this in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2.McPherson v. Blacker  The Constitution does not say how the states must do this. (However, the 14th Amendment says that states cannot treat some groups of people differently.) In the past, states used different ways. Today, nearly all states give all their electoral votes to the person with the most votes in that state, even if they do not have a more than half of the votes in that state. Maine and Nebraska separate their electoral votes between areas called "districts". The NPVIC changes how its members give out their electoral votes.

Reasons for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
In the past, some people who did not get the most votes from normal people became president anyway. Most Americans want the person with the most votes to be president despite the fact that two States, California and New York would essentially cancel out the votes of 43 other States and limit the amount of personal exposure those States receive from potential presidential candidates.  In 2007, 72% of surveyed Americans said they wanted to change the Electoral College to a direct vote. This included 78% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans, and 73% of independent voters. Surveys since 1944 show most Americans want a direct vote, except in 2016. Reasons for the NPVIC include:
 Today, a person can become president even if another person got more votes. This happened in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. In 2000, Al Gore got 543,895 more votes than George W. Bush. However, Bush got five more electoral votes and became president. In 2016, Hillary Clinton got 2,868,691 more votes nationally than Donald Trump simply because she won California by more than 3 million votes. However, Trump got 77 more electoral votes, by winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
 Today, the easiest way to win an election is to campaign mostly in a few "swing states". The vote in these states is usually very close. A small change in the votes of swing states can make a big difference in the Electoral College. For this reason, problems in swing states get the most of candidates' time, and problems in other states get much less. In the 2004 election, the people running for president spent three quarters of their money in only five states. They did not visit or advertise at all in 18 states.
 Today, fewer people vote in states where the election is not close. When people think they know who will win their state, they think they do not have a reason to vote. In 2004, in the ten closest states, 64.4% of people younger than 30 who could vote did vote. In the other states, only 47.6% of those people voted.

Debate
Several newspapers want the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to start working. They include The New York Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune. These newspapers say that the current system makes people not want to vote. They say the current system gives too much attention to a few states and their problems. Other newspapers are against the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, including the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and The Wall Street Journal. The former governor of Delaware, Pierre S. du Pont IV, is against the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Pierre S. du Pont IV said the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact gives too much power to cities and states with many people. Pierre S. du Pont IV said the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would make politics be about only city problems, and it would let worse people run for office. The League of Women Voters made a list of documents that argue for and against the agreement.

Some of the biggest reasons are given below:

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will change which states candidates look at and care about
 Advertising and visits by the top two candidates during the final period before the 2004 presidential election (Sept. 26 – Nov. 2, 2004)

Spending on advertising for each person: 

Campaign visits for each 1 million people:  220px
Today, people running for president give most of their money and time and speeches to states where the vote will be close. The other states are mostly not given money and time and speeches. The maps here show the amount of advertising and visits by the top two people running in 2004. This is adjusted by the number of people in each state. People who support the NPVIC say that it will make the people running work to get votes in every state. People who are against the NPVIC say that states with few people and few cities will not get enough attention.

Cheating and close elections
Some people are against the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact because they worry about cheating. Governor du Pont said that it is easier to add a few false votes in many places than to add many false votes in just a few places. However, National Popular Vote says that adding together all the votes in the country will make it harder to cheat. Today, the winner can be decided by a very small number of votes in just one state.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does not say how to count the votes again if who won is not clear. Each state makes this choice for its own votes. However, that means the whole country's number can be close even if the number in each state is not. People who like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact say that a close number is less likely in the whole country than in each state.

States with many people and states with few people
People don't agree about whether the Electoral College helps states with few people, or states with many people. The Electoral College is not made to give electoral votes based on the number of people in each state: states with few people have more electoral votes for each person than states with many people. If the Electoral College were proportional, California would have 19% more power than it does now. The states with the fewest people would have 30% less power. However, some people say that states with many people have more power than one may expect, because they control so many electoral votes at once. The NPVIC gives the same power to every person, no matter where they live.

Helping one party
Some people believe the NPVIC would help one side in politics or another, which would not be fair. Pierre S. du Pont IV, a Republican, says the agreement would help Democrats and people in cities. However, Saul Anuzis of the Republican National Committee thinks that the agreement will help Republicans, because he believes most people are closer to Republican political positions. Writer Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker says the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact helps neither party: in the past, each party sometimes had the better hopes in the Electoral College. In the last five elections, the Democrats had the better position in three years (2004, 2008, and 2012) and the Republicans had it in two years (2000 and 2016). In four of those years, Democrats won the most votes in the country.

Difference between votes in a state and votes in the country
The NPVIC can make a state give its electoral votes to someone who did not win the most votes in that state. For this reason, two governors (Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Linda Lingle of Hawaii) stopped their states from joining the agreement. (Both those states later joined the agreement.) People who support the agreement say that the number of votes in any one state is not as important as the choice of most people in the whole country.

Problems between the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and laws as they are now
Those who want the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact say that it is legal and allowed by the U.S. Constitution. Article II of the Constitution lets states decide how to give out their electoral votes. The two men who created the agreement, Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar, hold this position. Jamie Raskin agrees. Raskin is a professor of law and a Congressman from Maryland. He put his name on the first National Popular Vote Interstate Compact bill that became law.

One law student wrote that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could break the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which keeps harm from coming to voters who are not like most people. However, the U.S. Department of Justice decided that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does not hurt minority voters. The U.S. Department of Justice allowed California to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in 2012.Many other papers say good things about this paper, such as Schwartz 2020, Williams 2011, Williams 2012 and Zimmerman 2012. Rob Richie of the group of people called FairVote says that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact "treats all voters equally". The same student wrote the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact tries to go around the normal way of changing the Constitution. Raskin replied that going around in this way is legal.

Approval by Congress
Ian Drake, an assistant professor of political science, believes the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will only be lawful if the Constitution is changed. Other writers believe that the agreement is already proper. Those who vote in the Electoral College promise to vote for a certain person, but they do not have to vote that way by law. Michael Brody believes that this makes the agreement proper.

It is possible that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will only become law after Congress says "yes" to it. The Constitution says that agreements between states need Congress to say yes to them. However, the U.S. Supreme Court says that this is not always true. They talked about that question in the court case Virginia v. Tennessee and others. They decided the only agreements that need Congress to say yes to them are those that threaten the right to rule of the U.S. government. Every Vote Equal says that the NPVIC cannot threaten the authority of the U.S. government, because the Constitution lets states decide how to give out their electoral votes. Derek Muller does not agree. He argues that the NPVIC affects the U.S. government system, and so it needs approval. Ian Drake says that Congress is not allowed to approve the agreement. Those who support the NPVIC do not agree. They do not think the agreement needs approval from Congress, but they plan to ask for this approval in any case.

History
Plans to end the Electoral College by changing the Constitution
In the past, people have made several plans to end the Electoral College by adding something to the Constitution to change the Constitution. This is called an "amendment". However, this is very difficult to do. First, two thirds of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives need to approve the change. Then, three quarters of the states need to approve the change.

Bayh–Celler Amendment
The plan that came closest to success was the Bayh-Celler plan. It was introduced in the 91st Congress, which met from January 1969 to January 1971. The Bayh–Celler Amendment was brought to Congress by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York. The Bayh-Celler plan would have ended the Electoral College, and instead made a new way of choosing the president using only the number of votes by regular Americans. The pair of people with the most votes would become president and vice president, as long as they got more than 40% of the votes. If no one got more than 40%, a new vote would happen with the top two pairs. Celler's plan was approved in the House of Representatives in 1969, by a vote of 338–70. However, it was stopped in the Senate by a filibuster.

Every Vote Counts Amendment
In 2005, Representative Gene Green of Texas introduced another plan to chose the president and vice president using the popular vote. Green introduced his plan to Congress as a "joint resolution" called H.J.Res. 9. It was also called the Every Vote Counts Amendment. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Illinois and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida also introduced joint resolutions in the 111th Congress, which met from 2009 to 2011. All of these plans died in committees, before the whole Congress could vote on them.

Plan using an agreement between states
In 2001, a law professor named Robert Bennett introduced a new plan. Bennett's plan did not require a change to the Constitution. His plan used the power of the states instead of fighting against it. In Bennett's plan, a group of states that control most of the Electoral College could work together. They would make the popular vote decide the result of elections.

Two other law professors, brothers named Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar, supported this plan. The Amar brothers proposed an agreement between states, made with laws in those states. The states would give all their electoral votes to the person who won the popular vote. The agreement would not become active until it guaranteed that person would win the Electoral College and become president. This agreement became the NPVIC.

The Amar brothers' plan uses two parts of the Constitution:
 Article 2, section 1, clause 2, or the "Presidential Electors Clause": This lets each state decide how to give out its electoral votes.
 Article I, section 10, clause 3, or the "Compact Clause": This lets states make agreements of this type.

The Amar brothers' plan could work with as few as eleven states. They believe it would not need approval from Congress. However, that is not certain: the section Approval by Congress explains why.

Getting people to work together and doing it
In 2006, the computer science professor John Koza wrote a book called Every Vote Equal. The book argues for a National Popular Vote agreement between states. (Koza knew about agreements between states from his work on lottery tickets.) Koza, Barry Fadem, and others made a non-profit organization called National Popular Vote. This organization promotes the NPVIC. It is led by people from both major political parties, including former Senators Jake Garn, Birch Bayh, and David Durenberger, and former Representatives John Anderson, John Buchanan, and Tom Campbell.

In 2006, legislatures in six states looked at NPVIC bills. Illinois even introduced a bill before National Popular Vote announced it at a press conference. That year, the Colorado Senate approved the bill. Both houses of the California legislature approved the bill, but Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stopped it with a veto.

Joining
In 2007, 42 states looked at bills to join the NPVIC. One house of the legislature approved bills in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Hawaii. Maryland was the first state to join the agreement. Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed the agreement into law on April 10, 2007.

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have joined the agreement.

All 50 states have looked at bills to join the NPVIC.Progress in the States, National Popular Vote. In some states, only one house has approved the agreement: Arizona, Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington had bills to leave the agreement, but these failed.

+ Places that have joined the NPVIC Number  Place  Date joinedWay of joiningCurrentElectoralvotes (EV) 1  Maryland Signed by Gov.  Martin O'Malley10 2  New Jersey Signed by Gov. Jon Corzine14 3  Illinois Signed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich19 4  Hawaii Legislature overturned veto by Gov. Linda Lingle4 5  Washington Signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire12 6  Massachusetts Signed by Gov. Deval Patrick11 7  District of Columbia Signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty (see note)3 8  Vermont Signed by Gov.  Peter Shumlin3 9  California Signed by Gov.  Jerry Brown54 10  Rhode Island Signed by Gov.  Lincoln Chafee4 11  New York Signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo< >28 12  Connecticut Signed by Gov. Dannel Malloy713ColoradoMarch 15, 2019Signed by Gov. Jared Polis1014DelawareMarch 28, 2019Signed by Gov. John Carney315New MexicoApril 3, 2019Signed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham516OregonJune 12, 2019Signed by Gov. Kate Brown8Total195Percentage of 27072.2%
The U.S. Congress can stop laws in the District of Columbia within 30 working days, but they did not do this.

Initiatives and referendums
Some states allow laws to be made with a direct vote by the public, called an "initiative" or a "referendum". First, supporters must get a certain number of people to sign their names. Then, the question can be given to the voters. In 2018, groups in Arizona, Maine, and Missouri worked on initiatives to join the agreement, but these did not get enough people to sign.

Chances
Nate Silver, who studies elections, says that the NPVIC cannot begin working without "red" states (states that mostly vote for Republicans) saying yes to it. So far, only "blue" states have joined (states that mostly vote for Democrats). However, legislatures controlled by Republicans have agreed to join the agreement in Arizona, Oklahoma, and New York.

The Constitution allows the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
The Constitution allows the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact because the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is probabky not the kind of "compact" that the Constitution restricts. This means the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is constitutional. Another way to say that is: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has constitutionality. This answers questions about the constitutionality of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

The United States Supreme Court's decision that faithless elector laws are constitutional tells us that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is constitutional.http://www.brookings.edu/articles/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/

References

Category:United States presidential elections