By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Virginia has joined a growing national effort to ensure presidential election winners are determined by the national popular vote, rather than the Electoral College. Governor Abigail Spanberger signed a bill enacting the National Popular Vote Compact, an agreement that commits participating states to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the overall popular vote nationwide. This brings the total to 18 states and the District of Columbia, representing 222 electoral votes, though the compact only takes effect once it reaches the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Supporters argue this change will make every vote relevant and protect American democracy, while potential legal challenges loom if the compact achieves its goal.
Read the original article here
Virginia has officially joined a growing national movement aimed at ensuring that the winner of the popular vote in presidential elections ultimately becomes the president. This significant development sees the Commonwealth align itself with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a collective agreement among states to cast their electoral votes for the candidate who garners the most individual votes nationwide. This legislative action marks a pivotal step in the ongoing effort to reform the way the United States elects its leaders, moving away from the historical system of the Electoral College.
With Virginia’s endorsement, the compact now includes 18 states and the District of Columbia, collectively representing 222 electoral votes. While this is a substantial bloc, the compact’s ultimate activation hinges on reaching a critical threshold: 270 electoral votes, which is the number required to win the presidency. Until this benchmark is met, the compact remains in a state of readiness, poised to reshape presidential contests once sufficient states have committed. The intention behind this effort is clear: to ensure that the will of the majority of American voters is directly reflected in the outcome of the presidential election, a principle that resonates deeply with the idea of “one person, one vote.”
The move by Virginia and the broader momentum behind the National Popular Vote Compact are fueled by a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the current Electoral College system. Many view the Electoral College as an outdated mechanism that can, and has, resulted in presidents who did not win the national popular vote. This outcome is often described as undemocratic and inherently unfair, leading to frustration and a perception that some votes carry more weight than others. The desire for a system where every vote is equally valuable, regardless of where it is cast, is a powerful driving force behind this initiative.
The history of the Electoral College has been a focal point of criticism, with some characterizing it as having anti-democratic and even racist origins. The fact that such a fundamental change to the electoral process requires a national effort rather than being the default setup is seen by many as a glaring indictment of the current system’s shortcomings. The sentiment is that it is long overdue to align presidential elections with the straightforward principle of majority rule.
Concerns have been raised about potential legal challenges, with some anticipating that the Supreme Court might attempt to block the National Popular Vote Compact. However, proponents argue that the compact is designed to be “Supreme-Court proof” because it operates within the existing constitutional framework, allowing states to control their own electoral votes. The theory is that states, through their legislatures, have the power to determine how their electors are allocated.
The political divide on this issue is quite pronounced. Data suggests a significant partisan split, with Democrats overwhelmingly favoring a shift to a popular vote system, while Republicans show less support. This disparity is often attributed to the fact that recent presidents who lost the popular vote but won the presidency through the Electoral College have been Republicans. For those who support the compact, it represents a way to counter what they perceive as a system that has historically benefited one party.
Beyond the National Popular Vote Compact, there’s also a desire for other electoral reforms, such as ranked-choice voting. This suggests a broader appetite for modernizing and improving democratic processes to ensure greater fairness and representation. The current system is seen by some as being “undercut by the electoral college and by a broken two-party system,” indicating a desire for more comprehensive changes.
The idea of a national popular vote winner becoming president is not without its complexities and potential challenges. Some express concerns about the logistical implications of national recounts, recalling past contentious elections. Others worry about the potential impact on less populated states, fearing that their voices might be diminished if the focus shifts entirely to a national popular vote. The argument is made that the Electoral College, in some respects, ensures a broader distribution of attention and resources across different states, preventing candidates from solely focusing on densely populated urban centers.
There is also the question of whether states joining the compact can be confident in the vote counts of all other participating states, especially those with different political leanings. The compact relies on a degree of trust in the electoral integrity of all member states. The dynamic where a state’s electoral votes are pledged to the national popular vote winner, even if their own state’s voters supported a different candidate, is a significant aspect of the compact’s operation. This willingness by states to align their electoral votes with the national outcome underscores their commitment to the principle of popular sovereignty in presidential elections.
Ultimately, Virginia’s decision to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact signals a growing national consensus that the president should be chosen by the most votes. It represents a tangible step towards a system where every individual vote carries equal weight, and the winner of the national popular vote is assured of the presidency. This movement continues to gain traction, bringing the United States closer to a fundamental shift in how it elects its highest office.