With Virginia, the total number of states signed on to the interstate compact is now 18, plus the District of Columbia, for a total of 222 electoral votes.

The compact doesn’t go into effect, though, until there are enough states signed up to reach the required 270 electoral votes to elect a president.

“This [effort] started 20 years ago and it’s been slow and steady … constant forward momentum across these 20 years,” said Alyssa Cass, a strategist for the National Popular Vote Project and a Democratic consultant. “Bills have been introduced in almost every state, most passed in a bipartisan way. This is on the 5-yard line of making this a reality.”

    • reddig33@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      16 days ago

      I’m wondering if a proportional elector compact would work better than the current interstate compact — If a candidate gets 2/3 of the state’s popular vote, that candidate gets 2/3 of the electors.

      • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        16 days ago

        That would require essentially 100% of states to enact in order to have a result that makes sense, which is even less realistic. Committing all electors to the winner of the national popular vote only requires states that have at least 270 combined electors in order to make the electoral college irrelevant, which is a realistic goal that has almost been achieved.

  • Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    4·
    17 days ago

    Can someone eli5 how this would effect elections if/when it goes into effect?

    Is this just a way to stop electoral votes from going against the peoples vote?

    • brandon@piefed.socialEnglish
      10·
      17 days ago

      Not quite for a five year old but: These states have agreed with each other to allocate their votes in the electoral college to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. The agreement only goes into affect once states controlling 270 electoral college votes have signed on. This is the amount required to win the presidency, so at that point the popular vote winner will necessarily win the election.

      It’s likely that this agreement would face challenges in court if/when it eventually goes into effect.

      • Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        1·
        17 days ago

        Right, but isn’t that how things work now? As soon as an elect has 270 electoral votes they win. It’s alwats been first past the goal. It must force the electoral college to vote as the popular deems. I’m fairly certain at the moment the 538 individual people that actually get to vote on who becomes president can vote however they choose. No matter how you or i voted.

        Think i answered my own question.

          • reddig33@lemmy.worldEnglish
            22·
            16 days ago

            And yet dems did jack all to reform this or push to get rid of the electoral college. So this will just continue to happen.

            • Wilco@lemmy.zipEnglish
              4·
              16 days ago

              The dems really couldnt. Getting rid of the electoral college would likely require ratification. Over two thirds of the votes are needed in both the house and senate. Not likely. It would take 2/3 of the states to ratify it … that would happen first imo.

              • reddig33@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                16 days ago

                Did you know the republicans have been trying to put together a constitutional convention to push through their agenda? At least they try to do things. Other than a handful of lefties, Dems don’t even float the idea of actual change.

        • CrackedLinuxISO@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          3·
          17 days ago

          Different states have different laws, but many have faithless elector protections.

          A faithless elector is someone who, after being chosen for the electoral college, does not vote for the candidate that everyone expected. Since states have a wide latitude to select or reject electoral college representatives, they can pas laws saying “If you change your vote, we will cancel your vote and replace you”. I would expect that this popular vote compact requires such protection.

        • brandon@piefed.socialEnglish
          3·
          17 days ago

          Right, the key is that now the electoral college does not necessarily have the same result as the popular vote.

          This agreement, if in effect, will ensure that the EC result matches the popular vote.

    • Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      3·
      17 days ago

      "There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. "

      -archive dot gov