Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

700+ Proposed Amendments Failed, Midwest Voters Can Succeed

Midwestern states pioneered the adoption of direct democracy (initiatives and referendums) during the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s). In 2026 the direct democracy parallel is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Opinion

A group of people wait in line to get their ballots to vote in the election.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could reshape presidential elections as Midwest states debate Electoral College reform, political polarization, and the future of winner-take-all voting in America.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

The Midwest served as the vanguard and ideological heartland of the Progressive Era, acting as a crucial laboratory for political, social, and economic reforms that later adopted national significance. Midwestern states (the cradle of the movement) pioneered anti-monopoly efforts, democratic, and social improvements.

After 770+ failed proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendments (the most on record for one issue) to remedy the factionalism (21st century polarization) feared by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.


The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), a creative legal workaround, without requiring a U.S. Constitutional amendment, will be deliberated in (2027-2028) in many Midwest legislatures, with great emphasis on Michigan and Wisconsin, with fifteen and ten electoral votes, respectively. As the compact needs 48 more electoral votes to hit the 270-vote threshold, these purple or contested states are key battlegrounds where legislative control could determine whether they join the 19 jurisdictions already signed on.

The winner-take-all (WTA) electoral system, now utilized by 48 states and the District of Columbia, is the catalyst for the extreme political polarization (or "factionalism") that characterizes 21st-century American politics, a dynamic the Framers of the Constitution specifically sought to prevent.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution, particularly James Madison and George Washington, feared that political factions—groups united by common interests contrary to the rights of others would tear the new nation apart, leading to corruption, instability, and the erosion of liberty. They believed factions would prioritize narrow, partisan goals over the common good. 21st-century case in point: Project 2025! Prior to the formation of the author of Project 2025, many proposed Electoral College amendments had bipartisan support, with some failing to invoke closure in the Senate due to the filibuster.

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia’s adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, which collectively hold 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a small group of 12 battleground states functioned as "magnets," attracting virtually all campaign resources, with candidates concentrated 99% of their advertising and 94% of physical visits on these "up for grabs" territories. Electoral college wins have ranged from 100% (George Washington) to barely more than 50%. Elections in the 21st century have been closer, on average, than most prior elections.

Efforts to reform or abolish the Electoral College (an institution of “minority rule” in and of itself) have historically failed due to institutional features that empower political minorities, a phenomenon frequently described as the "triple tyranny of the minority" within the U.S. constitutional system. These are: the U.S. Senate (Malapportionment), the Senate grants two seats to every state regardless of population, the Senate Filibuster, and the Constitutional Amendment Process. These institutions allow a small fraction of the population to block changes favored by the majority.

Historical Failed Amendments

• On September 18, 1969, the House passed a direct election amendment with a strong bipartisan vote (338-70). While heavily bipartisan, the effort died in the Senate in 1970 due to a filibuster led by Southern senators. Despite roughly 80% public support and a 338-70 House vote in favor, the proposal died when the 91st Congress ended.

• 1979: A proposal to abolish the Electoral College failed in the Senate with a 51-48 vote, falling short of the required two-thirds majority.

• Post-2000/2016: Despite the winner of the popular vote losing the presidency, subsequent attempts to pass constitutional amendments have failed to gain traction, due to the partisan perception that the system favors Republicans.

Institutional "Tyranny" and Reform

Experts argue that the combination of these elements creates a system where popular majorities cannot easily alter the foundational mechanisms of government. Because a formal amendment is so difficult, reformers have shifted to initiatives like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which attempts to change the system without amending the Constitution.


Hugh J. Campbell, Jr., CPA, is a Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) professional and a student of W. Edwards Deming, the American statistician often credited as the catalyst for the Japanese economic miracle after WWII.


Read More

​U.S. President Donald Trump sitting in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Eric Lee/Getty Images

Trump’s Elections Speech Was Not the Opening Shot; It was the Latest Salvo

President Donald Trump’s recent address repeating his claim that he won the 2020 election was widely portrayed as a dramatic escalation of his attacks on our election system. It wasn’t.

It is nothing new!

Keep ReadingShow less
  Creative Images Creative Images & Video Images Creative Editorial Video Creative Editorial  Search by image or video Close-up of woman holding a smartphone.

Can secure mobile voting expand election access? Explore how smartphone voting could increase turnout, improve accessibility, and modernize U.S. elections.

Sitthiphong/Getty Images

Mail-In Ballots Are Still Under Attack. Mobile Voting Can Protect Access To The Ballot Box.

Late last year, I became CEO of The Mobile Voting Project. Previously, I served as Chief of Staff to two United States senators, Chief of Staff at the US Department of Education, and Chief of Staff for Vice President Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. At every step in my public service career, I have always had one clear goal: making government work better for everyday people.

I believe that we cannot make government work better if we do not start at the very foundation of our government itself: democracy and voting. In my current role with The Mobile Voting Project, we are focused on making voting more seamless, secure, and accessible. We believe that putting democracy — literally — into the palms of every American’s hand is how we can boost turnout, reduce extremism, and strengthen our democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Woman voting on election day

Proportional representation is gaining momentum in the U.S. Explore ranked choice voting, open-list systems, constitutional limits, and the future of electoral reform.

Getty Images, Tetra Images

Which Proportional Voting System Best Fits America’s Constraints?

In the wake of recent redistricting battles, proportional representation is having a moment. Ezra Klein devoted an entire episode to touting it as a solution to gerrymandering. A flock of Substackers and influencers chimed in. Even Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg came out as PR curious.

From the hubbub, you might assume that most students of US elections believe that multi-winner districts with proportional representation are the only full solution to the redistricting wars, and you’d be right. But beyond that point of consensus, agreement breaks down. Proponents split into camps over which type of proportional representation to pursue.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people at separate voting booths, filling out a ballot.

Voters cast their ballots in Colorado's primary election at the Central Library on June 30, 2026 in Denver, Colorado. Voters are deciding on candidates for Colorado Governor, US Senate and other races.

Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

Closed Primaries Let 7% of Voters Choose 87% of Congress

Consider this wacky football scenario: What if only fans who declared their team loyalty before the game are allowed to watch the Super Bowl? Yep, unless you pick a team, you can’t get into the stadium. This is similar to how closed primary elections work, in which only registered voters of a specific political party can participate in that party's primary. That’s the brilliant analogy the Unite America Institute uses in a new, short explainer video describing the highly undemocratic system that dominates American primary elections.

“In most elections, the real contest is not the general election but the party primary held months before,” said Beth Hladick, Policy Director at Unite America. The new video is part of a year-long fellowship project: the Democracy and Public Service Initiative, a partnership between the National Academy of Public Administration and the Bridge Alliance.

Keep ReadingShow less