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

people filling out their ballots at voting booths and submitting their vote.

Independent voters may hand Democrats control of Congress this fall — but as history shows, they'll get nothing in return. Here's how to change that.

Pressmaster/Getty Images

Swinging Outcomes Is Not Enough

The midterms are six weeks away, and polls predict that independent voters, who broke for Donald Trump in 2024, are planning on voting for Democrats by wide margins. Among Latinos, the numbers are staggering, to the point that the Republican gerrymanders in Florida and Texas may actually result in Democratic victories.

If the Democrats take control of Congress, it will be because of independents. And what do independents get in return?

Keep ReadingShow less
Diverse People At Voting Booth. Vote Here Elections Sign

A political scientist examines how automatic voter registration is quietly turning non-affiliation into America's largest voting bloc.

AndreyPopov/Getty Images

When Neither Party Is the Default: Rethinking Representation As America’s Electorate Changes

For most of my career as a political scientist, representation was the central theme of my teaching and research. Early on, I studied how legislators understood their responsibilities to constituents — whether they saw themselves as delegates carrying out constituent mandates, trustees exercising independent judgment, or politicos combining both. That work asked a question that still matters: What does it mean to represent the public in a changing democracy?

Today I find myself asking a related question: What happens when the electorate changes but the institutions built to represent it do not?

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship

Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.

To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close-up shot of a Black woman's hands receiving a mail-in ballot to vote in a USA Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, or local election

An immigrant's perspective on why America's election debate over security vs. access is a false choice — and how USPS mail ballot rules fit in.

Jeremy Poland/Getty Images

Ballot Security and Voter Access Are Not Opposites: What the USPS Ballot Rule Gets Right

I came to the United States from India in 1982. In Indian elections, I watched officials check voter identity and mark a voter’s finger with indelible ink. Party representatives observed the process. The system was imperfect, as every large democracy is, but it sent a simple message: casting one vote is a serious civic act, and the process should make that clear.

When I later became an American citizen and cast my first ballot, the experience felt very different. A poll worker found my name on a list and handed me a ballot. In my precinct, there was no photo identification check. I was surprised—not because I expected voting to be difficult, but because I expected a system as consequential as an election to have clear, visible safeguards.

Keep ReadingShow less