Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Virginia Joins the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC): Virginia's Adoption is an Act of Patriotism, Righting an 1800 Wrong.

Opinion

Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia becomes the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Congratulations and thank you to both Virginia's legislative chambers and Governor Abigail Spanberger for making Virginia the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

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 (WTA) 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.

The wrong of the 1800 presidential election was that Virginia moved from a district-based system for awarding its electoral votes to adopt a winner-take-all system , a strategic, partisan move designed to secure all of the state's electoral votes for Thomas Jefferson and prevent John Adams from gaining any.

John Marshall, Chief Justice (1801–1835) and a staunch Virginia Federalist, strongly opposed the adoption of the "winner-take-all" system for electing the president, viewing it as a partisan, unprincipled mechanism. A furious Marshall declared that he would never vote for president again while that system remained in place.

James Madison, often called the "Father of the Constitution," described the creation of the Electoral College as a "shoddy piece of work". In his later years, he reflected that the system was a rushed compromise finalized while the Constitutional Convention delegates were exhausted and eager to return home.

Virginia's founders pointed out that the Electoral College system could allow a small fraction of the population (the seven smallest states) to effectively choose the president, which they viewed as a violation of proportional representation.

The WTA system elected five non-popular vote presidents, all of whom would have lost, under the pre-1800, district-based system.

A 2017 article published by the author of Project 2025 argues that the Electoral College has provided "orderly elections and a stable government for more than 200 years". This contention can be called into question by pointing to two periods of our history.

During the “Gilded Age,” Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-81) and Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893) were non-popular vote presidents. This period (1870s–1900) saw intense industrialization, economic growth, and extreme wealth inequality in the U.S. The “Gilded Age” was coined by Mark Twain to describe a shiny, prosperous surface covering deep social, political, and economic corruption. It was marked by the rise of "robber barons," rapid urbanization, and labor exploitation.

During our "Second Gilded Age, there were also two U.S. presidents who won the Electoral College and the presidency despite losing the national popular vote. George W. Bush (2001-2005) and Donald Trump (2017-2021) were frequently compared to Benjamin Harrison for similar political corruption. This modern era (1980s–present) features extreme wealth concentration, corporate monopolies, and political corruption. Modern oligarchs—tech billionaires and finance moguls—use vast fortunes to influence politics, purchase media, and control data, often shaping public discourse to their advantage.

In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a small group of 12 battleground states functioned as "magnets," attracting virtually all campaign resources, with candidates concentrating nearly 99% of their advertising and 94% of physical visits on these "up for grabs" territories.

In the documentary film Heist: Who Stole the American Dream? (2011) Van Jones articulates a core philosophy of power by stating: “There are only two kinds of power in the world: organized money and organized people.” While organized money holds significant inherent advantages over political systems, organized people have the power to create change when they unite, e.g. (50501 Movement). In the 21st century, one such inherent advantage of organized money is the optional "winner-take-all" Electoral College, which, since it is optional, is a gift to oligarchs by U.S. sovereign states, who can choose to withdraw these gifts.

In 2026, NPVIC will be a relevant issue in a number of state elections, particularly in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. 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.

Without the "battleground state" phenomenon, the effectiveness and strategic deployment of money in U.S. politics would shift from concentrated, localized spending to a more diluted, nationalized, or purely proportional approach. Some models suggest that if a national popular vote replaced the Electoral College, the overall amount of money spent on advertising could decrease in typical elections, as the "winner-take-all" incentive to tip a single state with massive ad buys disappears. Instead of tailoring messages to specific regional interests, e.g., tariffs, in swing states, large donations would fuel national campaigns focusing on broad, national policy, potentially diminishing the ability of localized interests to use money to influence policy. In future presidential elections and broad national policy, it is likely to include affordability.


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

With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep Reading Show less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep Reading Show less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep Reading Show less
People voting at voting booths.

A little-known interstate compact could change how the U.S. elects presidents by 2028, replacing the Electoral College with the national popular vote.

Getty Images, VIEW press

The Quiet Campaign That Could Rewrite the 2028 Election

Most Americans are unaware, but a quiet campaign in states across the country is moving toward one of the biggest changes in presidential elections since the nation was founded.

A movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is happening mostly out of public view and could soon change how the United States picks its president, possibly as early as 2028.

Keep Reading Show less