Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an interstate compact initiative to award member states' Electoral College votes to the presidential ticket that receives the most votes nationwide. Although the U.S. Constitution allows states to determine how to award their electoral votes, most states have awarded the full slate of electors to the winner of the popular vote.[1] The NPVIC would go into effect if states representing at least 270 Electoral College votes adopt legislation committing them to the compact.[2][3]

As of January 2025, 17 states and Washington, D.C., had adopted legislation to join the NPVIC. Together, they represent 209 Electoral College votes—77% of the 270 votes needed for the agreement to go into effect.[2][3]

In four elections between 1876 and 2020, a presidential candidate won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote. Proponents of the NPVIC have pointed to these examples as evidence that the current system of awarding electors is flawed.[4] NPVIC opponents have said the Compact would change the way elections are run, encouraging candidates to focus on the most populous regions of the country at the expense of rural states.[5] Click here to read arguments for and against the NPVIC.

As of January 2025, including D.C., an average of one state had joined the Compact each year since it was first introduced in 2006. All governors who signed legislation adopting the NPVIC were members of the Democratic Party.


Explore the topics below for detailed information:

History and background

Most states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes in the state. In most U.S. presidential elections, the winner of the Electoral College also won the popular vote. However, there were four presidential elections where the winner won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote:[6]

According to the Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress, "The NPV initiative emerged following the presidential election of 2000, in which one ticket gained an electoral vote majority, winning the presidency, but received fewer popular votes than its opponents. NPV grew out of subsequent discussions among scholars and activists about how to avoid similar outcomes in the future and to achieve direct popular election."[7] For example, in December 2001, Constitutional law scholars Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar wrote an article that sketched out a hypothetical agreement states could join that would result in the presidential candidate with the most votes winning the electoral college. The agreement, Amar and Amar imagined, might begin with the proviso : "This state shall choose a slate of electors loyal to the Presidential candidate who wins the 'National Presidential Vote,' if and only if other states, whose electors taken together with this state's electors total at least 270, also enact laws guaranteeing that they will choose electors loyal to the Presidential candidate who wins the 'National Presidential Vote.'"[8]

In 2006, computer scientist John Koza and attorney Barry Fadem founded the National Popular Vote Inc., a nonprofit, to manage NPVIC advocacy.[9] The organization's first press release said: "Republicans, Democrats and Independents, including former Republican Representative and Independent presidential candidate John Anderson, joined together today to call for the national popular election of the President. They offered a novel approach which is politically practical because it relies on the Constitutional power given to states to allocate Presidential electors."[10][11]

National Popular Vote Inc. Advisory Board

As of January 2025, the National Popular Vote Inc. listed the following members of the Advisory Board:

Current status of the compact by state

This page was last updated in July 2025. States shaded in orange had enacted National Popular Vote Interstate Compact legislation.

Timeline of state adoption

Below, you'll find our three most recent updates on the NPVIC.

  • April 16, 2024: Maine adopted legislation joining the NPVIC after Gov. Janet Mills (D) allowed LD1578 to go into effect without her signature.[12]
  • May 24, 2023: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed HF 1830, an omnibus bill that contained a provision about the NPVIC.[13]
  • November 3, 2020: Colorado voters approved Proposition 113 52.33%-47.67%, upholding legislation that joined Colorado to the NPVIC.[14]

Expand the section below to see a full timeline.



The following table provides a timeline of what states had joined the NPVIC, what political parties controlled government at the time, and the state's electoral votes based on the results of the 2020 census.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) adoption
State/District Year Trifecta status at time of enactment Enactment EVs (2024)
Maryland 2007 Democratic trifecta Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) signed legislation 10
New Jersey 2008 Democratic trifecta Gov. Jon Corzine (D) signed legislation 14
Illinois 2008 Democratic trifecta Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) signed legislation 19
Hawaii 2008 Divided government Democratic-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Linda Lingle's (R) veto of legislation 4
Washington 2009 Democratic trifecta Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) signed legislation 12
Massachusetts 2010 Democratic trifecta Gov. Deval Patrick (D)signed legislation 11
Washington, D.C. 2010 Democratic trifecta Mayor Adrian Fenty (D) signed legislation 3
Vermont 2011 Democratic trifecta Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) signed legislation 3
California 2011 Democratic trifecta Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed legislation 54
Rhode Island 2013 Democratic trifecta Gov. Lincoln Chafee (D) signed legislation 4
New York 2014 Divided government Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed legislation 28
Connecticut 2018 Democratic trifecta Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) signed legislation 7
Delaware 2019 Democratic trifecta Gov. John Carney (D) signed legislation 3
New Mexico 2019 Democratic trifecta Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signed legislation 5
Oregon 2019 Democratic trifecta Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed legislation 8
Colorado 2020 Democratic trifecta Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed; law challenged and upheld through voter approval of Proposition 113[43] 10
Minnesota 2023 Democratic trifecta Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed HF1830 into law.[44][45] 10
Maine 2024 Democratic trifecta LD1578 became law without signature from Gov. Janet Mills (D).[46] 4
Total: 205

State government trifectas and non-NPVIC member states

State government trifecta is a term to describe single-party government, when one political party holds the governorship and majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. Of the 17 NPVIC member states, 15 had a Democratic trifecta at the time of adoption, while two had a divided government. None of the 17 states had a Republican trifecta.

Of the 33 states that were not part of the NPVIC as of January 2025:

State government trifectas and the 2024 elections

Going into the November 2024 elections, Ballotpedia assessed the chances of new trifectas forming in states that were under divided government. That analysis is shown below:


Predicted Democratic pickups

Moderate possibility: 2

Slight possibility: 1

Low possibility: 2
Toss-ups
2
Predicted Republican pickups

Significant possibility: 1

Slight possibility: 1

Potential new trifectas

Democratic Party Arizona
Democratic Party Kansas
Democratic Party Kentucky
Democratic Party Pennsylvania
Democratic Party Wisconsin

Independent_American_Party North Carolina
Independent_American_Party Vermont

Republican Party Alaska
Republican Party Nevada


Hover your mouse cursor over a state or tap the state for more details. Toss-up states are those where Democratic and Republican trifectas both have a good chance of forming.

Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin had a combined 54 electoral college votes. If those states gained Democratic trifectas in the 2024 election and voted to join the NPVIC, the compact would reach 263 votes—seven short of the 270 needed for the compact to go into effect. However, Ballotpedia rated North Carolina as having a slight possibility of gaining a Democratic trifecta. If that occurred and North Carolina, with 16 electoral college votes, joined the NPVIC alongside Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, then the compact would take effect with 279 votes.

Arguments for and against the NPVIC

We've compiled the following arguments for and against the NPVIC from various ideologically diverse sources, including policy institutes, elected officials, and academics. This section begins with arguments made in defense of the NPVIC and continues with arguments made against it.

Supporting arguments

Supporters of the National Popular Vote say it would encourage presidential candidates to campaign in more states and provide a more democratic alternative to the current system, which can result in presidential candidates winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote. Supporters also say the Compact fully accords with the Constitution, which grants states the freedom to decide how to award their Electoral College votes.

Claim: The NPVIC would ensure presidential candidates campaign in a greater number of states

Because of state winner-take-all statutes (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), four out of five states and four out of five Americans were systematically ignored in the general-election campaign for President in 2012.

The reason that four out of five states are ignored is that presidential candidates have no incentive to visit, advertise in, organize in, poll in, or pay attention to the voters in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind.[47]

—National Popular Vote[48]

Claim: The NPVIC is more democratic than a system in which electors are allocated to the candidate who wins the popular vote in each individual state

This is a change that is long overdue. Two-thirds of the presidents elected in my adult life will have been chosen by the Electoral College in their first term without receiving the majority vote. Our current framework does not respect the direct will of the people. This is patently undemocratic and undermines confidence in the people that we are truly a democracy.”[47]
—Former Ohio State Rep. Dan Ramos (D)[49]

Claim: The NPVIC comports with the Constitution

While the Constitution states that electors must elect the President, it gives states no guidance or requirements on how electors must be chosen. In fact, the Supreme Court has decided that the federal government may not interfere with the states’ choice of how to appoint their electors. Accordingly, the compact which simply instructs electors how they should vote as members of the Electoral College presents no direct constitutional conflict.[47]

—ACLU of New York[50]

Opposing arguments

Opponents of the National Popular Vote say the compact is unconstitutional, vaguely written, and would encourage candidates to campaign in the most populous regions of the country at the expense of rural states and towns.

Claim: Under the NPVIC, presidential candidates would ignore rural and less populous regions of the country

"If the President were elected only by national popular vote instead of by the states, a presidential campaign would only need to locate the highest concentrations of voters most likely to support its candidate—and ignore the rest of the country. The ability to do so has never been greater. Maintaining the Electoral College, therefore, is the only way to ensure that those who want to lead the nation seek support across the nation."[47]

—Thomas Jipping, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation[51]
Claim: The NPVIC is likely unconstitutional

Under the Constitution without the NPV in effect, each voter has an opportunity to vote for an elector who in turn would be pledged to vote for the presidential candidate favored by that voter. This right was certainly one of the privileges of citizens of the United States and without question is a right protected by the 14th Amendment. However, if that voter’s state has joined the NPV, that voter will have lost that right. No matter what candidate the voter prefers, the electors in that voter’s state will be required by the state’s law to vote for the candidate who has the most popular votes nationally.[47]

—Peter J. Wallison, Senior Fellow Emeritus, American Enterprise Institute[52]

Claim: States could come up with novel ways of allocating electors to confound the NPVIC

"The Compact’s language simply assumes the existence of a traditional popular vote total in each state but it provides no details on how that is to be ascertained. This hasn’t gone unnoticed by opponents. It opens the door for a state to throw a wrench in the works by adopting alternative methods for choosing their electors, methods which are not conducive to producing an unambiguous national popular vote total."[47]
—Andy Craig, The Cato Institute[53]


Ballot measures related to the NPVIC

On November 3, 2020, Colorado voters approved Proposition 113 52.33%-47.67%, joining the state to the Compact. At the time, Colorado was the only state to join the NPVIC through the use of a ballot measure. This section describes Colorado's Proposition 113 and other measures or potential measures related to the NPVIC.

Nevada (2026)

See also: Nevada National Popular Vote Compact Amendment (2026)

The Nevada National Popular Vote Compact Amendment will not appear on the ballot in Nevada as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2026.[54]

The Nevada General Assembly approved Assembly Joint Resolution 6 (AJR 6) 27-14 on April 17, 2023. The Nevada State Senate approved the bill 12-9 on May 18, 2023. In Nevada, a majority vote is required in two successive sessions of the Nevada State Legislature to place an amendment on the ballot. If the Nevada State Legislature approved AJR 6 again in 2025, the measure would appear on the ballot in 2026.[55]


Michigan (2024)

See also: Michigan National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Initiative (2024)

The ballot initiative was designed to join Michigan in NPVIC. Sponsors did not submit signatures before the deadline.


Washington (2022)

See also: Washington Withdrawal from National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Initiative (2022)

This initiative would have withdrawn Washington from the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.[56] Washington joined the Compact in 2009. Sponsors did not submit signatures before the deadline on December 30, 2021.

Colorado (2020)

See also: Colorado Proposition 113, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Referendum (2020)

Colorado Proposition 113

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

1,644,716 52.33%
No 1,498,500 47.67%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Approval of the veto referendum upheld Senate Bill 42 (SB 42), which was designed to enter Colorado into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Senate Bill 42 passed the Colorado Senate 19-16, with all Democrats in favor and all Republicans opposed. The House approved the bill 34-29, with 34 of 40 voting Democrats in favor and all 23 Republicans against. Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) signed the bill into law on March 15, 2019. Mesa County Commissioner Rose Pugliese and Monument Mayor Don Wilson filed this referendum against SB 42 on March 15, 2019. This referendum petition effort placed SB 42 on the ballot for a statewide vote of the people.[2][3]

Text of the compact

The legislature of each member state passes the laws with certain modifications, but the core of the legislation remains the same.

Article I: Membership

Any State of the United States and the District of Columbia may become a member of this agreement by enacting this agreement.

Article II: Right of the People in Member States to Vote for President and Vice President

Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.

Article III: Manner of Appointing Presidential Electors in Member States

  • Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a “national popular vote total” for each presidential slate.
  • The chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the “national popular vote winner.”
  • The presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment in that official’s own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner.
  • At least six days before the day fixed by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, each member state shall make a final determination of the number of popular votes cast in the state for each presidential slate and shall communicate an official statement of such determination within 24 hours to the chief election official of each other member state.
  • The chief election official of each member state shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate made by the day established by federal law for making a state’s final determination conclusive as to the counting of electoral votes by Congress.
  • In event of a tie for the national popular vote winner, the presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment of the elector slate nominated in association with the presidential slate receiving the largest number of popular votes within that official’s own state.
  • If, for any reason, the number of presidential electors nominated in a member state in association with the national popular vote winner is less than or greater than that state’s number of electoral votes, the presidential candidate on the presidential slate that has been designated as the national popular vote winner shall have the power to nominate the presidential electors for that state and that state’s presidential elector certifying official shall certify the appointment of such nominees. The chief election official of each member state shall immediately release to the public all vote counts or statements of votes as they are determined or obtained.
  • This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes.

Article IV: Other Provisions

  • This agreement shall take effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form and the enactments by such states have taken effect in each state.
  • 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.
  • The chief executive of each member state shall promptly notify the chief executive of all other states of when this agreement has been enacted and has taken effect in that official’s state, when the state has withdrawn from this agreement, and when this agreement takes effect generally.
  • This agreement shall terminate if the electoral college is abolished.
  • If any provision of this agreement is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be affected.

Article V: Definitions

For purposes of this agreement,

  • “chief executive” shall mean the Governor of a State of the United States or the Mayor of the District of Columbia;
  • “elector slate” shall mean a slate of candidates who have been nominated in a state for the position of presidential elector in association with a presidential slate;
  • “chief election official” shall mean the state official or body that is authorized to certify the total number of popular votes for each presidential slate;
  • “presidential elector” shall mean an elector for President and Vice President of the United States;
  • “presidential elector certifying official” shall mean the state official or body that is authorized to certify the appointment of the state’s presidential electors;
  • “presidential slate” shall mean a slate of two persons, the first of whom has been nominated as a candidate for President of the United States and the second of whom has been nominated as a candidate for Vice President of the United States, or any legal successors to such persons, regardless of whether both names appear on the ballot presented to the voter in a particular state;
  • “state” shall mean a State of the United States and the District of Columbia; and
  • “statewide popular election” shall mean a general election in which votes are cast for presidential slates by individual voters and counted on a statewide basis.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. Maine and Nebraska, the two exceptions, split their electoral votes, giving two each to the winner of the popular vote and one to the popular vote winner in each congressional district.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 National Popular Vote.com, Main page, accessed August 9, 2011 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "nationalvote" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "nationalvote" defined multiple times with different content
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 National Center for Interstate Compacts, "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact," accessed March 6, 2016 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "compact" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "compact" defined multiple times with different content
  4. National Popular Vote, "9.3 Myth That “Wrong Winner” Elections Are Rare," accessed July 18, 2024
  5. Washington Post, "This blue-state election compact could create a constitutional crisis," June 11, 2023
  6. Additionally, the winner of the 1824 presidential election, John Quincy Adams (Democratic-Republican), won neither the Electoral College nor the popular vote.
  7. Congressional Research Service, "The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact," October 28, 2019
  8. FindLaw, "HOW TO ACHIEVE DIRECT NATIONAL ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION: Part Three Of A Three-part Series On The 2000 Election And The Electoral College," December 28, 2001
  9. Congressional Research Service, "The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact," October 28, 2019
  10. National Popular Vote, "Press release for initial press conference," February 23, 2006
  11. National Popular Vote.com, "Explanation," accessed May 18, 2018
  12. State of Maine | Office of Governor Janet T. Mills, "Governor Mills Allows National Popular Vote Legislation to Become Law Without Her Signature," April 15, 2024
  13. National Popular Vote, "Minnesota," accessed June 11, 2023
  14. The Denver Post, "Challenge of national popular vote compact makes Colorado’s 2020 ballot," August 29, 2019
  15. Bill Track 50, "ME LD1578," accessed April 18, 2024
  16. National Popular Vote, "Minnesota," accessed June 11, 2023
  17. The Denver Post, "Challenge of national popular vote compact makes Colorado’s 2020 ballot," August 29, 2019
  18. Bangor Daily News, "Maine Senate backs push to replace Electoral College with national popular vote," May 14, 2019
  19. Bangor Daily News, "Maine House rejects effort to link Electoral College to national popular vote," May 30, 2019
  20. Maine State Legislature, "LD 816," accessed May 15, 2019
  21. Oregon State Legislature, "Senate Bill 870," accessed June 6, 2019
  22. CNN, "Oregon bill granting electoral college votes to national popular vote winner heads to governor's desk," June 5, 2019
  23. The Hill, "Nevada Democratic governor vetoes national popular vote bill," May 30, 2019
  24. Nevada State Legislature, "AB 186," accessed April 17, 2019
  25. Elko Daily Fress Press, "Nevada Assembly passes national popular vote bill," April 17, 2019
  26. The Hill, "Nevada Senate passes bill that would give Electoral College votes to winner of national popular vote," May 22, 2019
  27. New Mexico Legislature, "House Bill 55," accessed April 17, 2019
  28. Colorado State Legislature, "SB19-042," accessed April 17, 2019
  29. Colorado Public Radio, "Colorado Joins National Popular Vote Movement With Gov. Jared Polis' Signature," March 15, 2019
  30. Roll Call, "Colorado joins effort to elect presidents by popular vote, go around Electoral College," March 18, 2019
  31. National Popular Vote, "Connecticut," accessed September 20, 2023
  32. HuffPost, "Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor," May 17, 2018
  33. Metro, "New York joins accord to strengthen popular vote in presidential elections," April 15, 2014
  34. 19 WJAR, "RI joins national popular vote electoral compact," July 12, 2013
  35. Mother Jones, "California Joins National Popular Vote Movement," August 11, 2011
  36. Campaigns and Elections, "Vermont is Latest State to Join National Popular Vote Movement," April 26, 2011
  37. FiveThirtyEight, "Why a Plan to Circumvent the Electoral College Is Probably Doomed," April 17, 2014
  38. Honolulu Civil Beat, "Lingle Vetoed National Popular Vote Bill," November 5, 2012
  39. Common Cause, "Washington Becomes Fifth State to Join Agreement on Popular Vote for President," January 30, 2014
  40. Denver Post, "NJ backs giving state's electoral votes to popular vote winner," January 13, 2008
  41. Common Cause, "Illinois Becomes Third State to Join Agreement on Popular Vote for President," January 30, 2014
  42. NBC News, "Maryland sidesteps electoral college," April 11, 2007
  43. In Colorado, the state legislature passed NPVIC legislation in 2019, which Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed on March 15, 2019. Rose Pugliese and Don Wilson filed a veto referendum against the legislation, and collected signatures for the law to appear on the ballot. The veto referendum suspended the law until voters upheld the legislation at the election on November 3, 2020.
  44. National Popular Vote, "Minnesota," accessed June 11, 2023
  45. Minnesota Reformer, "Minnesota lawmakers bring national popular vote one step closer to reality," May 24, 2023
  46. Associated Press, "Maine joins compact to elect the president by popular vote but it won’t come into play this November," April 15, 2024
  47. 47.0 47.1 47.2 47.3 47.4 47.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  48. National Popular Vote, "9.2 Myths That Candidates Reach Out to All the States under the Current System," July 19, 2024
  49. Ohio House of Representatives, "Ohio seeks to join National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to restore citizen's democracy," January 26, 2017
  50. ACLU of New York, "Legislative Memo: To Amend the Law to Elect the President by National Popular Vote," April 4, 2012
  51. The Heritage Foundation, "The National Popular Vote: Misusing an Interstate Compact to Bypass the Constitution," October 8, 2020
  52. National Review, "The National Popular Vote Idea Is Unconstitutional and Should Be Abandoned," June 27, 2023
  53. The Cato Institute, "The Fatally Flawed National Popular Vote Plan," November 17, 2021
  54. Nevada State Legislature, "AJR 6," accessed May 23, 2023
  55. National Popular Vote, "Nevada," accessed July 19, 2024
  56. Washington Secretary of State, "Proposed Initiatives to the 2022 Legislature," accessed April 13, 2021