Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

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

Opinion

Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be 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

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 will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 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.

Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that VA has joined the NPVIC but HB965, "National Popular Vote Compact; enters Virginia into an interstate compact," has yet to be signed by Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger.


Read More

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
People at voting booths.

A clear breakdown of voter ID laws under the Constitution, federal statutes, and court rulings—plus analysis of new Trump administration proposals to impose nationwide voter identification requirements.

Getty Images, LPETTET

Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


Few issues generate more heat and are less understood than voter ID.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

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

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less