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

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
People attend a rally with signs that read, "Abolish ICE," and "Money out of politics."

People hold signs as Democratic Congressional candidate Brad Lander speaks during an election eve rally at Silo on June 22, 2026 in the East Williamsburg neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough in New York City.

Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images

Facts Don’t Win Elections. Stories Do.

As a student, I was taught that politics is a contest of ideas. Experience has shown me otherwise.

In a recent New York Times interview with Ezra Klein, conservative activist Chris Rufo captured this reality succinctly: “While we should have the facts on our side, and while we should use logic, by itself, it’s insufficient. Politics operates on a deeper level, an emotional level. Politics occurs on the field of sentiment and public opinion much more than on the field of abstract argumentation.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A crowd of protestors standing on a sidewalk, many holding protest signs.

Suffragists protest President Woodrow Wilson in Chicago in October 1916, four years before ratification of the 19th Amendment. The history of voting rights has never been a clean march forward; even rights later treated as inevitable were won through pressure, backlash and years of state-by-state organizing.

Universal History Archive

What 250 Years of Voting Rights Battles Tell Us About Today

Happy Fourth of July, on this 250th anniversary of the United States. We’re living through extraordinary times in American democracy, as President Trump presses for greater federal control over elections and redistricting slips loose from its once-a-decade rhythm. As always, Votebeat is focused on an essential part of it: who gets to vote, who makes the rules, and what those votes are worth.

That question has loomed over the nation from the beginning. Voting history is often framed as a steady expansion from white male landowners to everyone else. The truth is messier. States have always experimented with expanding the franchise, retracting it, and expanding it again.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records

Texas Department of Public Safety Region II Headquarters on Oct. 1, 2025 in Houston. The state is using DPS records to cross-check a list of registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens using a federal database.

Antranik Tavitian for The Texas Tribune

Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office is now checking whether 2,724 registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens may have already provided proof of citizenship to the Texas Department of Public Safety, elections division director Christina Adkins said during a meeting with county election administrators earlier this month. That check comes after county elections officials found the federal database used to generate the list flagged some voters who had already given citizenship documentation to DPS when they registered to vote.

Texas officials in October sent counties the list of potential noncitizens generated by checking the state’s voter roll of more than 18 million registered voters against a federal database used to verify citizenship. Soon after the state released the list, counties began to investigate the flagged registrants and mail notices asking them to provide documented proof of citizenship.

Keep ReadingShow less