Maine joins the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
As everyone knows, the United States doesn't choose its president by popular vote, but by electoral votes based on the winner in each state. To win, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes. This is baked into the Constitution and switching to a popular vote would require an amendment.
However, the Constitution also allows each state to allocate its electoral votes any way it wishes. Originally, the state legislatures decided this, however, currently it's based on whichever candidate gets the most votes in the state. There is a proposal, called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where states that sign on would award their electoral votes based on whichever candidate won the most votes nationwide, regardless of which candidate won in that particular state. This would prevent the situations in 2000 and 2016 where the loser of the popular vote won the election by having more electoral votes.
[c=003BB2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact[/c]
With Maine joining, the NPVIC currently has 209 electoral votes. It doesn't kick in until it hits 270, so at the moment it has no bearing on the upcoming election. Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and Virginia have pending legislation to join the NPVIC; if they do, that will bring the total to 254 electoral votes. Needless to say, the NPVIC is favored by Democrats as they are more likely to benefit, since the last two elections where the winner lost the popular vote but was elected anyway were won by Republicans. So the most likely state that might adopt it and bring it over the top would be Pennsylvania, which could have a Democratic trifecta next year.
[c=003BB2]https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4596054-maine-joins-effort-to-elect-president-by-popular-vote-with-new-law/[/c]
One advantage of a national popular vote would be that every vote would count. Under the current system, a Democrat in a red state, or a Republican in a blue state, might as well not vote at all because their state's electoral votes will go to the other party based on the state's majority. There are only around half a dozen true swing states without a clear majority for either party. With a national popular vote, a Republican's vote in California, or a Democrat's vote in Wyoming, would be added to the national total and could actually have an effect. This would prevent bizarre results like the one in 2000 where around 500 voters in Florida decided the election.
One disadvantage would be that since every vote counts, candidates would have to campaign everywhere, making them even more expensive. With only a few swing states, they can concentrate on those and ignore the solid red or blue states. Living in Georgia, I expect to see a lot more campaigning this year than I would have if I were still living in California or Oregon. That wouldn't be the case with a national popular vote.
However, the Constitution also allows each state to allocate its electoral votes any way it wishes. Originally, the state legislatures decided this, however, currently it's based on whichever candidate gets the most votes in the state. There is a proposal, called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where states that sign on would award their electoral votes based on whichever candidate won the most votes nationwide, regardless of which candidate won in that particular state. This would prevent the situations in 2000 and 2016 where the loser of the popular vote won the election by having more electoral votes.
[c=003BB2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact[/c]
With Maine joining, the NPVIC currently has 209 electoral votes. It doesn't kick in until it hits 270, so at the moment it has no bearing on the upcoming election. Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and Virginia have pending legislation to join the NPVIC; if they do, that will bring the total to 254 electoral votes. Needless to say, the NPVIC is favored by Democrats as they are more likely to benefit, since the last two elections where the winner lost the popular vote but was elected anyway were won by Republicans. So the most likely state that might adopt it and bring it over the top would be Pennsylvania, which could have a Democratic trifecta next year.
[c=003BB2]https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4596054-maine-joins-effort-to-elect-president-by-popular-vote-with-new-law/[/c]
One advantage of a national popular vote would be that every vote would count. Under the current system, a Democrat in a red state, or a Republican in a blue state, might as well not vote at all because their state's electoral votes will go to the other party based on the state's majority. There are only around half a dozen true swing states without a clear majority for either party. With a national popular vote, a Republican's vote in California, or a Democrat's vote in Wyoming, would be added to the national total and could actually have an effect. This would prevent bizarre results like the one in 2000 where around 500 voters in Florida decided the election.
One disadvantage would be that since every vote counts, candidates would have to campaign everywhere, making them even more expensive. With only a few swing states, they can concentrate on those and ignore the solid red or blue states. Living in Georgia, I expect to see a lot more campaigning this year than I would have if I were still living in California or Oregon. That wouldn't be the case with a national popular vote.
