Elections have consequences. But a victory at the ballot box does not give politicians a blank check to fundamentally change how Americans elect their president. Public power rests on the people’s consent. Officials pursuing that transformation must explain what voters were asked to approve, whose influence would change, and why they are proceeding without constitutional amendment. Those obligations apply equally to Democrats and Republicans.
For two decades, advocates of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact have sought to make the nationwide popular vote determine the presidency through coordinated state legislation. Introduced in 2006, the initiative predates today’s political circumstances. Its consequences extend beyond either party’s expectations about the next election.
Participating states agree to award their electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide, even when their own citizens preferred someone else. The compact becomes operative when participating jurisdictions collectively control an electoral majority, currently 270 votes. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted it, representing 222 electoral votes. It has not reached the activation threshold.
I oppose achieving this transformation through the compact. A change that makes one national tally control a decisive electoral bloc should earn the broader agreement required for constitutional amendment. That judgment would remain the same regardless of which party expected to benefit.
James Madison identified the source of legitimate authority in Federalist No. 49: “The people are the only legitimate fountain of power.” The Constitution derived its authority through ratification by the people acting within their states. That foundation of consent deserves particular respect when officials propose changing how a constitutional mechanism operates.
In Federalist No. 39, Madison explained that presidential selection combined population with the states’ distinct political standing. Electoral allocations reflect that balance: each state receives electors corresponding to its House delegation plus two corresponding to its senators. The constitutional design gives statehood an explicit place alongside population.
Presidential candidates consequently compete to assemble an electoral majority through outcomes in individual states. The compact would make the nationwide vote total control participating states’ appointments. Changing the role of state outcomes is consequential, even if the Electoral College remains formally intact.
Less populous states have a particular stake. Their electoral allocations provide representation beyond population alone. Under the compact, a participating state’s statewide choice would no longer determine its presidential electors when that choice differed from the national winner. Its citizens’ votes would still count nationally, but their state’s separate result would lose its controlling role.
Supporters offer a serious constitutional response. Article 2 gives states broad authority over appointing electors, and states may use a national popular-vote result. Enactment by elected legislatures is itself representative government. The question is whether those separate enactments provide sufficient agreement for this coordinated national transformation.
The compact raises unresolved constitutional questions. Even if courts ultimately permit it, I believe a change of this magnitude should proceed through amendment. Article 5 requires ratification by three-fourths of the states, currently 38, after an amendment is properly proposed. That threshold requires persuasion across a broad cross section of the union.
Recent developments make this long-standing debate immediate. Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro is open to joining the compact, and incoming Democratic legislative leaders in Arizona and Michigan have expressed interest. Their positions differ, and enactment remains uncertain. They should explain their intentions, just as Republicans should if they pursue the same change.
Legislators need not obtain a referendum before every consequential vote. Nevertheless, these officials should explain when they presented the compact to constituents and how it fits their campaign commitments. Election results alone cannot establish endorsement of this proposal.
THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN. BUT WHAT DID THEY SAY?
Colorado’s citizens explicitly approved participation through Proposition 113 in November 2020, with 52.33% supporting it. Supporters also argue that the compact would encourage campaigning beyond battleground states. Those arguments deserve a national hearing, and both parties should consider the precedent of redirecting constitutional mechanisms through coordinated legislation.
The question reaches beyond who wins the next presidential election. It concerns the consent on which public authority rests and the responsibility of those entrusted with it. Advocates of this transformation should propose an amendment, make their case, and earn ratification from 38 states. Elections have consequences. They do not give either party a blank check to treat its own victory as the people’s consent to fundamentally change presidential selection.
Dan Varroney is an economic and policy strategist, founder and CEO of Potomac Core, and author of Rethinking Economic Growth.