A Stealthy Assault on the Electoral College?

Rex Ballard
17 hours ago
6 min read

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Most Americans are totally unaware that they are on the brink of waking up one morning only to find that the Electoral College system could disappear overnight.

Electoral College Map - image wikipedia.org

In the landscape of American electoral reform, few proposals have sparked as much controversy as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Framed by its supporters as a pragmatic workaround to ensure the presidency goes to the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, critics decry it as a "back door" effort to subvert the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a foundational element of the U.S. Constitution designed to balance power between populous and less populous states. It is the very thing that keeps us from becoming a simple, majority-rule democracy, our Founding Fathers warned us of.

This article examines the NPVIC's mechanics, its perilously close proximity to activation, its undermining of constitutional principles, and the repercussions it will likely have if implemented.

Understanding the NPVIC: Origins and Mechanics

The NPVIC emerged in the wake of contentious elections like 2000 (where George W. Bush won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote to Al Gore) and 2016 (Donald Trump's Electoral College victory despite Hillary Clinton's popular vote edge). Proponents, organized under National Popular Vote Inc., argue that the current "winner-take-all" system in most states distorts democracy by concentrating campaigns on a small set of swing states while ignoring others.

Here's how it works: Participating states agree to award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome within their own borders. The compact activates only when states controlling at least 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) join, effectively guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner secures the presidency without abolishing the Electoral College outright. This interstate agreement leverages Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which grants states plenary power to appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct."

Introduced in 2006, the NPVIC has gained traction primarily in Democratic-leaning states, reflecting partisan divides: supporters see it as a fix for "minority rule," while opponents view it as an end-run around the Constitution's amendment process (Article V), which requires two-thirds of Congress or states to propose changes and three-fourths to ratify them.

How Close Is Activation? Teetering on the Brink

As of February 2026, the NPVIC is alarmingly close to its activation threshold, at 77% complete and potentially within inches of triggering. Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia—totaling 18 jurisdictions—have enacted the compact into law, committing 209 electoral votes. This includes major states such as California (54 EVs), New York (28), and Illinois (19), as well as recent additions such as Minnesota (signed by Governor Tim Walz in 2023) and Maine (2024).

The compact needs just 61 more electoral votes to hit 270 and go live—potentially as early as the 2028 election if momentum holds. Bills are advancing in several states: In Michigan, the House committee has approved it (15 EVs); Nevada's legislature passed it in both chambers (6 EVs); and crucially, Virginia—just this month—saw the bill clear the Senate (21-19 on February 9) and House (61-36 on February 11), awaiting the governor's signature for 13 more EVs. If Virginia joins, the total jumps to 222 EVs, or 82% of the goal, leaving only 48 short.

Other battlegrounds, such as Arizona (11 EVs), North Carolina (16), and Pennsylvania (19), have seen partial progress, with bills passing in at least one chamber in seven states, totaling 74 EVs. Public support hovers around 65%, according to recent polls, but Republican-led legislatures remain skeptical, viewing it as a threat to the influence of smaller states. At this pace, activation could occur within the next legislative cycle, thrusting the U.S. into uncharted electoral territory.

Subverting a Constitutional Cornerstone: Bypassing the Founders' Design

The Electoral College, enshrined in Article II and refined by the 12th Amendment, is no mere relic—it's a deliberate "cornerstone" of the Constitution's federalist structure. The Founders rejected direct popular election multiple times during the Constitutional Convention, fearing mob rule, regional imbalances, and the dominance of large urban centers over rural areas. Instead, they crafted a system in which states, as sovereign entities, appoint electors based on congressional representation (population plus two senators), thereby ensuring that smaller states have disproportionate influence.

Critics argue the NPVIC subverts this by rendering state-level results irrelevant, effectively nationalizing the election without amending the Constitution. It transforms the Electoral College into a rubber stamp for the national popular vote, sidelining the federalist balance and allowing populous states (or cities) to dictate outcomes. For instance, under NPVIC, a candidate could win overwhelmingly in California and New York but lose most other states—yet still claim the presidency, diluting the voices of flyover country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjQzxrkw0eU

This "back door" approach circumvents Article V's rigorous amendment process, which has thwarted direct-election proposals for decades (e.g., a 1969 House-passed amendment died in the Senate amid civil rights concerns). By using an interstate compact—a tool historically used for mundane issues such as border disputes or tax sharing—NPVIC repurposes it to overhaul national elections, encroaching on federal supremacy and the rights of non-compact states. As the Heritage Foundation notes, it's an "unprecedented" misuse that treats the Constitution as an obstacle to be evaded, not a framework to be respected. Proponents counter that states' elector-appointment power is absolute (citing McPherson v. Blacker and Chiafalo v. Washington), but opponents see it as a de facto amendment disguised as coordination.

Likely Court Challenges: A Litigation Minefield

If activated, the NPVIC would face a barrage of lawsuits, with challengers targeting its constitutionality on multiple fronts. No major cases have arisen yet—it's not in effect—but legal scholars predict "considerable litigation" from non-compact states, losing candidates, or voters claiming diluted rights.

Key challenges include:

Compact Clause (Article I, Section 10): This prohibits states from entering "any Agreement or Compact" without congressional consent if it boosts state power at federal expense. Opponents argue that NPVIC qualifies because it alters national elections and harms non-members by nullifying their electoral strategies. Precedents such as Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) and U.S. Steel v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) suggest that consent is required for "political" compacts; proponents contend that it's unnecessary because it doesn't encroach on federal authority. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) deems it a "compact" under Supreme Court tests, predicting consent battles.
Article II and Electors Clause: While states have broad elector powers, critics say basing appointments on out-of-state votes violates the Founders' intent for state-centric elections. Chiafalo (2020) upheld state control over "faithless electors," but doesn't explicitly bless national aggregation.
Guarantee Clause (Article IV) and Equal Protection (14th Amendment): It could deny non-compact states a "republican form of government" or dilute votes by ignoring state-specific rules (e.g., varying fraud protections or turnout).
Voting Rights Act: By aggregating votes across inconsistent state systems, it might dilute minority influence, echoing post-2020 recount chaos.

Administrative hurdles, like verifying a "national" vote amid disputes, could spark Bush v. Gore-style recounts nationwide.

Will the Supreme Court Get Involved? Almost Certainly

Yes—the Supreme Court is poised to intervene, given its original jurisdiction over state-versus-state disputes (Article III). Challenges could reach the Supreme Court directly, bypassing lower courts, particularly if non-compact states such as Texas or Florida sue to block activation. The CRS warns of a "constitutional crisis-in-waiting," with the potential for pre-election injunctions or post-vote upheavals that could be worse than those in 2000 or 2020.

Recent rulings, such as Chiafalo, bolster state powers but don't resolve compact issues. In cases such as INS v. Chadha (1983) and Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the Court struck down laws that bypassed "finely wrought" constitutional procedures, a logic that could doom NPVIC as an unauthorized shortcut. With a conservative-leaning Court emphasizing originalism, the compact's fate hangs in the balance—likely invalidated without congressional consent.

Conclusion: A Risky Gamble on Democracy's Foundations

The NPVIC's march toward 270 EVs constitutes a bold yet perilous attempt to redefine the presidential election system, thereby subverting the Electoral College's role in preserving federalism. While it promises "one person, one vote," it risks chaos through untested mechanisms and inevitable litigation. If activated, expect a Supreme Court showdown that could reshape American democracy—or reinforce the Constitution's enduring safeguards. For now, with Virginia on the cusp, the nation watches as this "back door" edges open.

SHASTA

Serving the North State with Honest News and Entertainment

UNFILTERED