We believe Democrats can win–across the country.
Today, a campaign that calls itself “National Popular Vote” is taking advantage of Democrats' frustration with recent elections. The NPV campaign wants blue states to manipulate the Electoral College. This is shortsighted and hypocritical.
The NPV plan is bad for Democrats and dangerous to democracy. Click on a topic below to learn why.
The compact leaves in place all of the current potential for election contests and lawsuits, but creates additional conflicts by overturning state results based on votes from other states. It attempts to manipulate the Constitution, setting a disastrous precedent.
NPV would increase state and federal lawsuits.
The NPV plan leaves the Electoral College in place but tries to force it to rubber stamp what member states determine is the popular vote result. This dangerous precedent could be used to manipulate the system in other ways.
NPV is an interstate compact that changes how states choose their presidential electors. In each compact state, the chief election official would aggregate vote totals from other states to determine national popular vote results, and appoint presidential electors on that basis. This page describes the legal and practical dangers of the NPV compact plan.
NPV manipulates the Electoral College.
The NPV compact gives power to a few state officials to determine the results of presidential elections, and has no provisions – none at all – about conflicts, recounts, or election challenges.
The compact has no checks and balances.
Multiple states have passed resolutions opposing the NPV plan, with some indicating they will litigate or otherwise work to stop it from taking effect. Yet the NPV compact relies on cooperation from all states in order to function properly.
The compact relies on cooperation from other states.
Justice Elana Kagan, writing the most recent Supreme Court decision related to the Electoral College, pointed to the “tradition more than two centuries old [that presidential electors] are to vote for the candidate whom the State's voters have chosen” in upholding state laws against faithless electors.
The NPV plan relies on electors to be faithless to their own state’s voters, contrary to this two centuries old expectation. It also ignores the requirement that interstate compacts be ratified by Congress and the question of whether it violates the Constitution to combine votes cast under different election rules in different states.
The compact is probably unconstitutional.
With questionable constitutionality and no provisions for disputes, the NPV compact relies on judges to sort it all out. This could lead to Supreme Court justices deciding a presidential election.
NPV could throw an election to the Supreme Court.
It’s a good thing when Democrats focus not just where we are strongest, but also on voters in places like Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina. Party investment in those states has led to Democratic victories, but NPV threatens to reduce Democratic Party attention to voters in those states.
NPV would make the Democratic Party less diverse.
Other proposals to replace or reform the Electoral College would prevent a candidate from winning with a small plurality. NPV has no such protection, and would encourage splinter parties and spoiler candidates. NPV could result in a winning candidate with a small plurality.
The compact would produce small-plurality winners.
Maine and Alaska use RCV in presidential elections, and more states may follow their lead. But RCV-adjusted results from separate jurisdictions cannot be combined—the result would be mathematically invalid and thus undemocratic.
NPV conflicts with ranked choice voting (RCV).
Today, one state cannot sue another state to challenge its election process or results. NPV would change this by requiring states to use results from other states. For the first time, states would have justiciable interests in other states’ elections, leading to endless lawsuits across state lines.
States could sue other states.
State constitutions generally impose a residency requirement for voting. Depending on how this is written, it may prohibit NPV. For example, the Michigan Constitution expressly restricts voting for the state’s presidential electors to state residents.
NPV violates some state constitutions.
