The National Popular Vote Compact Is an Unconstitutional, Undemocratic Democratic Power Grab, Not Genuine Electoral Reform
Source: https://www.facebook.com/americanspectator/. "Democrats’ New Plan to Bypass the Electoral College | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics." November 9, 2026. spectator.org
The Gist
The author says Democrats want to use a deal among states to hand the presidency to whoever wins the national popular vote, skipping the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment. He argues this is unconstitutional and would override some states' own voters. He claims that if Democrats really cared about fair voting, they would split their electoral votes proportionally, so their refusal shows they just want more power.
Conclusion
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an unconstitutional and undemocratic scheme by Democrats to rig presidential elections and preserve the power of large Democratic-dominated states, rather than a sincere effort at 'one person, one vote' reform.
Premises
- NPVIC would require member states to cast all their electoral votes for the national popular vote winner, even when that candidate lost the state's own popular vote (e.g., Colorado would have had to give its votes to Trump in 2024).
- Binding a state's electors this way commits the state to disenfranchising its own voters in some future elections, which the author claims conflicts with the Constitution's guarantee of the vote to eligible citizens.
- The Constitution's Compact Clause bars interstate compacts without congressional consent, and Democrats, even if they control Congress, will lack a filibuster-proof 60 Senate votes to grant it, so the compact is vulnerable to constitutional challenge from the remaining states.
- If Democrats truly wanted 'one person, one vote,' they could allocate electoral votes proportionally by state, as Maine and Nebraska do, which raises no constitutional conflict.
- Proportional allocation would cost big Democratic states electoral power (e.g., about 20 of California's 54 votes would go to Republicans), and no Democratic-controlled state is willing to adopt it.
- Democrats' preference for NPVIC over proportional allocation shows that their goal is to shift power to populous Democratic regions while keeping their current advantages in large states.
Assumptions
- A state's electoral votes should follow that state's own popular vote, so honoring the national vote over the state vote counts as disenfranchisement.
- Congressional consent under the Compact Clause is required for NPVIC and would likely have to pass the Senate through a filibuster-proof majority.
- Proportional allocation of electoral votes is a fair, workable alternative that satisfies the 'one person, one vote' ideal.
- The motives of Democrats can be inferred from which reform option they choose and from the partisan effects of that option.
- Democratic advocates are uniformly motivated by partisan advantage rather than sincere democratic principle.
- Partisan benefit to Democrats is incompatible with the reform being legitimate or democratic.