National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Current status
■Enacted into law ■Pending in current legislative session ■Failed in current or a previous session Note: Each square in the lower cartogram represents one electoral vote.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among U.S. states designed to replace current state rules governing the electoral college system of presidential elections with rules guaranteeing election of the national popular vote winner. As of August 2011, this interstate compact has been joined by eight states (see map) and the District of Columbia; their 132 combined electoral votes amount to 24.5% of the electoral college and 49% of the 270 needed for the compact to take effect.

The compact is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. States have chosen various methods of allocation over the years, with regular changes in the nation's early decades. Today, 48 states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes statewide.

States joining the compact will continue to award their electoral votes in their current manner until the compact has been joined by enough states to represent a controlling majority of the Electoral College (currently 270 of the total 538 electoral votes.) After that point, all of the electoral votes of the member states would be cast for the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. With the national popular vote winner sure to have a decisive majority in the Electoral College, he or she would automatically win the Electoral College and therefore the presidency.

Details of the compact law

States join the compact by adopting it as a state law. The compact law^[1] requires that:

• The member state shall hold presidential elections by statewide popular vote.
• After the election, the state's chief election official (usually the state Secretary of State) shall certify the number of popular votes cast in the state for each candidate and report those results to the other states by a specific deadline.
• The chief election official shall then determine "national popular vote totals" for each candidate by adding up the vote totals reported by every state (including states that have not adopted the compact) and the District of Columbia. (Under current federal law, each state is required to make official reports of vote totals to the federal government in the form of Certificates of Ascertainment.)^[2]
• The state's electoral votes shall be awarded to the candidate with the greatest "national popular vote total."

The compact member states would award their electoral votes to the electors nominated by the candidate with the greatest number of popular votes (a plurality). In the extremely unlikely event of an exact tie in the national popular vote totals, each member state would award its electoral votes to the statewide winner, as is currently done in 48 states (Maine and Nebraska award some of their electoral votes based on results at the congressional district level).

The compact specifies that it shall take effect only if it is law in states controlling a majority of electoral votes on July 20 of a presidential election year. States wishing to join or withdraw from the compact after that date would not be able to implement that withdrawal until after January 20 of the following year. The compact would terminate in the event that the Electoral College is abolished.

Motivation behind the compact

Source: The Washington Post, 2007 poll.

See also: Contemporary conflict over the Electoral College.

Public opinion surveys suggest that a majority of Americans support the idea of a popular vote for president. A 2007 poll found that 72% favored replacing the Electoral College with a direct election, including 78% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans, and 73% of independent voters.^[3] Polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a direct vote.^[4] The idea is popular for various reasons:

• The Electoral College Votes system has an effect on presidential campaigns to focus disproportionately more on voters in a tiny percentage of pivotal swing states, while sidelining the rest of the states. A study by FairVote reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while the other 45 states got very little attention. The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV advertising.^[5] This may mean that swing state issues receive more attention while issues important to other states are largely ignored.^[6][7][8]

• The Electoral College Votes system may increase or decrease voter turnout disproportionately between states. Voters living outside the swing states tend to know more in advance the odds of which candidate is more likely to win their state. This greater certainty of the winner and knowledge of the odds may tend to decrease the incentive of voters in non swing states to spend energy voting for an outcome they feel they can't change -disproportionately unlike swing states voters.^[6][8] A report by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate found that 2004 voter turnout in competitive swing states grew by 6.3% from the previous presidential election, compared to an increase of only 3.8% in noncompetitive states.^[9] A report by The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that turnout among eligible voters under age 30 was 64.4% in the 10 closest battleground states and only 47.6% in the rest of the country—a 17% gap.^[10]

• There is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small or large population states. Those who argue that it favors small states point out that such states have more electoral votes relative to their populations (since the number of electors equals the number of representatives, based on population, plus two, because there are two senators).^[11][12] Others, however, believe that since most states award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all system, the potential of large states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout.^[13][14][15]

• The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency while losing the popular vote, as happened in the elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000. In each of these races, a Democrat won the popular vote while losing the electoral vote (and thus the election) to a Republican. In 2000, for example, Democrat Al Gore lost the election despite beating Republican George W. Bush in the popular vote. Republicans are not immune to this artifact of the electoral college, either, as Bush would have faced Gore's situation himself in 2004 if there had been a 60,000 vote shift to John Kerry in Ohio.^[6]

Debate

See also: Criticism of the Electoral College

The project has been supported by editorials in many newspapers, including the New York Times,^[6] the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times,^[16] the Boston Globe,^[17] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune,^[18] arguing that the existing system discourages voter turnout and leaves emphasis on only a few states and a few issues, while a popular election would equalize voting power. Others have argued against it, including the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.^[12] An article by Pierre S. du Pont, IV, a former governor of Delaware, in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal^[19] has called the project an urban power grab that would shift politics entirely to urban issues in high population states and allow lower caliber candidates to run. A collection of readings pro and con has been assembled by the League of Women Voters.^[20]

Some of the major issues are detailed below:

Focus of campaigning

Advertising spending and campaign visits by both major-party candidates during the final stretch of the 2004 presidential campaign (Sept. 26 – Nov. 2, 2004)^[21]

Spending on advertising per capita:
■ < $0.50
■ $0.50–$1.00
■ $1.00–$2.00
■ $2.00–$4.00
■ > $4.00

Campaign visits per 1 million residents:
■ No visits
■ < 1
■ 1–3
■ 3–9
■ > 9

Supporters of the compact argue that under the current system, campaign focus – in terms of advertising spending, visits, and addressing of regional or state issues – is largely limited to the few swing states whose electoral outcomes are competitive, with politically "solid" states largely ignored. The maps to the right illustrate the amount spent on advertising and the number of visits to each state, relative to population, by the two major-party candidates in the last stretch of the 2004 presidential campaign. Supporters of the compact contend that a national popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign with equal effort for votes in competitive and non-competitive states alike.^[22] Critics of the compact argue that candidates would have less incentive to focus on states with smaller populations or fewer urban areas, and would thus be unmotivated to address rural issues.^[19][23]

Close elections and voter fraud

Opponents of the compact have suggested that a direct national election would raise concerns about election fraud. Former Delaware Governor Pete du Pont argues that in 2000, "Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. 'Finding' three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing...". However, National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would reduce the likelihood of a close election and decrease the feasibility of fraud. They contend that the large nationwide pool of 122 million votes would make a close outcome much less likely than it is under the current system, in which the national winner may be determined by an extremely small vote margin in any one of the numerous statewide tallies.^[19][23]

Third-party candidates and polarization

Although supporters of the compact point out that direct election is already the method by which Americans elect their members of Congress, state leaders and local officials, opponents such as du Pont have argued that a direct popular vote in presidential contests could lead to a change in the current two party system. They contend that the difficulty of winning electoral votes under the current system may discourage third party and single-issue candidates from running, and therefore switching to a popular vote may lead more third party and single-issue candidates to enter the race. Furthermore, it is thought that an increase in the number of candidates will actually change the nature of the American political system, by preventing candidates from being too polarizing, outing a perceived media bias on both ends of the political spectrum, and making so-called 'attack ads' less politically beneficial.^{[19][dead link][24][not in citation given]}

Partisan advantage

Some supporters and opponents of the NPVIC have based their position at least in part on the perceived partisan advantage of the compact. Former Delaware Governor Pierre DuPont, a Republican, has argued that the compact would be an "urban power grab" and benefit Democrats.^[19] However, Saul Anuzis of the Republican National Committee wrote that Republicans "need" the compact, citing what he believes to be the center right nature of the American electorate.^[25] New Yorker essayist Hendrik Hertzberg maintains that the compact would benefit neither party by noting that historically both Republicans and Democrats have been successful in winning the popular vote in past presidential elections.^[26]

Electoral votes not necessarily awarded to statewide winner

Two governors who have vetoed NPVIC legislation, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Linda Lingle of Hawaii, both in 2007, objected to the compact on the grounds that it could require their states' electoral votes to be awarded to a candidate who did not win statewide. Both states have since enacted laws joining the compact. Supporters of the compact have countered that under the popular vote system, the awarding of electoral votes would be effectively irrelevant; that giving the state's electoral votes to the national winner would be a mere symbolic formality with no political meaning, because the popular vote would have already determined the outcome.^[27][28][29]

Legality

Supporters believe the compact is legal because Article II of the US Constitution establishes the plenary power of the states to appoint their electors in any manner they see fit:

“

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….

”

The Supreme Court affirmed this position as recently as 2000 in Bush v. Gore.^[30] These supporters include Jamie Raskin, who co-sponsored the first NPVIC bill to be signed into law, and Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar, who are among the nation's more visible scholars in constitutional law^[31] and who were the compact's original proponents.

David Gringer, however, suggests that the NPVIC could potentially violate the Voting Rights Act depending on how the Supreme Court would define "coalitional" or "influence" districts.^[32] Robert Richie, executive director of FairVote, disputed such claims and said he was "confident in the legality of a rule change that treats all voters equally and is founded on the power given by the Constitution to the states."^[33]

Gringer also assailed the NPVIC as "an end-run around the constitutional amendment process." Raskin has responded: "the term 'end run' has no known constitutional or legal meaning. More to the point, to the extent that we follow its meaning in real usage, the 'end run' is a perfectly lawful play."^[34] Raskin argues that the adoption of the term "end run" by the compact's opponents is a tacit acknowledgment of the plan's legality.

Necessity of congressional approval

Supporters of the compact believe the compact would be valid without congressional approval, but some critics maintain that the congressional approval is necessary before the NPVIC can go into effect. According to Every Vote Equal, although Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution requires that interstate compacts receive the consent of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except where a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.^[35] Every Vote Equal argues that the compact could never encroach upon federal power since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of casting electoral votes to the states, not the federal government. Derek Muller, an opponent of the compact, argues that the NPVIC would nonetheless affect the federal system in such a way that it requires Congressional approval.^[36] Regardless, supporters of the NPVIC plan to seek congressional approval if the compact is approved by a sufficient number of states.^[37]

History

The idea of abolishing the Electoral College by constitutional amendment has existed for some time (see Every Vote Counts Amendment). Though voting rights and electoral rules have been modified by constitutional amendment in the past, such amendments are difficult to pass because they require supermajorities in the House and Senate together with the support of three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Academic plan

In 2001 Northwestern University law professor Robert Bennett suggested a plan in an academic publication to implement a National Popular Vote through a mechanism that would embrace state legislatures’ power to appoint electors, rather than resist that power.^[38] By coordinating, states constituting a majority of the Electoral College could effectively implement a popular vote.

Law professors (and brothers) Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar defended the constitutionality of such a plan.^[39] They proposed that a group of states, through legislation, form a compact wherein they agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the balance of votes in their own state. These state laws would only be triggered once the compact included enough states to control a majority of the electoral college (270 votes), thus guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner would also win the electoral college.

The academic plan uses two constitutional features:

• Presidential Electors Clause in Article 2, section 1, clause 2 which gives each state the power to determine the manner in which its electors are selected.
• Compact Clause, Article I, section 10, clause 3 under which it creates an enforceable compact.

The Amar brothers noted that such a plan could be enacted by the passage of laws in as few as eleven states and would probably not require Congressional approval, though this is not certain (see Debate below).

Organization and advocacy

In 2006, John Koza, a computer science professor at Stanford, was the lead author of Every Vote Equal, a book that makes a detailed case for his plan for an interstate compact to establish National Popular Vote.^[40] (Koza had previously had exposure to interstate compacts from his work with state lottery commissions after inventing the scratch-off lottery ticket).) That year, Koza, Barry Fadem and others formed National Popular Vote, a non-profit group to promote the legislation. The group has a transpartisan advisory committee including former US Senators Jake Garn, Birch Bayh, and David Durenberger, and former Representatives John Anderson, John Buchanan, and Tom Campbell.

By the time of the group's opening news conference in February 2006, the proposed interstate compact had been introduced in the Illinois legislature. With backing from National Popular Vote, the NPVIC legislation was introduced in five additional state legislatures in the 2006 session. It passed in the Colorado Senate and in both houses of the California legislature before being vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Adoption

History of state participation in the NPVIC

In 2007, NPVIC legislation was introduced in 42 state legislatures. It was passed by legislative chambers in Arkansas,^[41] California,^[42] Colorado,^[43] Illinois,^[44] New Jersey^[45] and North Carolina,^[46] as well as both houses of the Hawaii legislature, where it was prevented from becoming law by a veto from Governor Linda Lingle.^[47] The bill was also passed by both houses in Maryland, which became the first state to join the compact when Governor Martin O'Malley signed it into law on April 10, 2007.^[48]

New Jersey became the second state to enter the compact when Governor Jon S. Corzine signed the bill into law on January 13, 2008.^[49] Illinois became the third state to join when Governor Rod Blagojevich signed it into law on April 7, 2008^[44] and Hawaii became the fourth on May 1, 2008 after the legislature overrode a second veto from the governor.^[50] Washington became the fifth state to join when Gov. Christine Gregoire signed it into law on April 28, 2009.^[51] Massachusetts became the sixth state to join when Governor Deval Patrick signed it into law on August 4, 2010.^[52] The District of Columbia entered into the compact when the bill was signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty on October 12, 2010. (Neither House of Congress objected to the passage of the bill during the review period of 30 legislative days in each house following that date, thus allowing the District's action to proceed.)^[53] Vermont joined the compact when Governor Peter Shumlin signed it into law on April 22, 2011.^[54] California entered the compact on August 8, 2011, with Governor Jerry Brown's signature.^[55]

NPVIC legislation has been introduced in all the 50 states.^[56] In addition to the enacting jurisdictions, states where one chamber has adopted the NPVIC legislation are Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina and Oregon. In Colorado and Rhode Island, the legislation has passed in both chambers. Bills to repeal the compact have been introduced in Maryland and New Jersey, but both failed.

Two measures titled "Presidential Electors. Allocation by National Popular Vote. Interstate Agreement. Statute" were filed as California ballot propositions, but failed to get on the ballot.^[57] These attempted ballot propositions were obviated by the legislative passage of the NPVIC in California in August 2011.

Jurisdictions enacting law to join National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

No.	Jurisdiction	Current Electoral votes (EV)	Date adopted
1	Maryland	10	02007-04-10April 10, 2007
2	New Jersey	14	02008-01-13January 13, 2008
3	Illinois	20	02008-04-07April 7, 2008
4	Hawaii	4	02008-05-01May 1, 2008
5	Washington	12	02009-04-28April 28, 2009
6	Massachusetts	11	02010-08-04August 4, 2010
7	District of Columbia	3	02010-12-07December 7, 2010
8	Vermont	3	02011-04-22April 22, 2011
9	California	55	02011-08-08August 8, 2011
Total		132 (48.9% of the 270 EV needed)

State-by-state legislative history and status

The table below lists significant attempts at enacting a national popular vote bill—specifically, those attempts that resulted in a floor vote in at least one legislative house, or that are pending in a state's current legislative session. Bills which failed without receiving a floor vote are not listed. The "EVs" column indicates the current number of electoral votes a state has. This number may have changed since a bill's introduction due to reapportionment following the 2010 Census.

State	EVs	Session	Bill(s)	Lower house	Upper house	Executive	Status
Alaska	3	2011–12	SB 39	—	in committee[58]	—	pending
Arkansas	6	2007	HB 1703	passed[41]	died in committee[41]	—	failed
Arkansas	6	2009	HB 1339	passed[59]	died in committee[59]	—	failed
California	55	2005–06	AB 2948	passed[60]	passed[60]	vetoed[60]	failed
California	55	2007–08	SB 37	passed[42]	passed[42]	vetoed[42]	failed
California	55	2011	AB 459	passed[61]	passed[61]	signed[55]	law
Colorado	9	2006	SB 06-223	died in committee[62]	passed	—	failed
Colorado	9	2007	SB 07-046	died in committee[43]	passed[43]	—	failed
Colorado	9	2009	HB 1299	passed[63]	failed[63]	—	failed
Connecticut	7	2009	HB 6437	passed[64]	died in committee	—	failed
District of Columbia	3	2009–10	B18-0769	passed[65]		signed[65]	law
Delaware	3	2009–10	HB 198	passed[66]	not voted on[66]	—	failed
Delaware	3	2011	HB 55	passed[67]	died in committee[67]	—	failed
Georgia	16	2011–12	HB 667	introduced[68]	—	—	pending
Hawaii	4	2007	HB 234,[69] SB 1956	did not override veto[47]	overrode veto[47]	vetoed[47]	failed
Hawaii	4	2008	HB 3013, SB 2898	overrode veto[70]	overrode veto[50]	veto overridden[50]	law
Illinois	21	2007–08	HB 858,[71] HB 1685, SB 78	passed[44]	passed[44]	signed[44]	law
Iowa	6	2011–12	SF 277	—	in committee[72]	—	pending
Kansas	6	2011–12	SB 242	—	in committee[73]	—	pending
Maine	4	2007–08	LD 1744	indef. postponed[74]	passed[75]	—	failed
Maryland	10	2007	HB 148, SB 634	passed[76]	passed[76]	signed[76]	law
Massachusetts	12	2007–08	HB 4952, SB 445[77]	passed[78]	passed[79]	not sent[80]	failed
Massachusetts	12	2009–10	H 4156	passed[81]	passed[82]	signed	law
Michigan	17	2007–08	HB 6610	passed[83]	died in committee[83]	—	failed
Minnesota	10	2011-12	HF495 / SF1241	—	in committee[84]	—	pending
Nebraska	5	2011-12	LB 583	in committee[85]		—	pending
Nevada	5	2009	AB 413	passed[86]	died in committee	—	failed
New Jersey	15	2006–07	A 4225, S 2695	passed[45]	passed[45]	signed[45]	law
New Mexico	5	2009	HB 383	passed[87][88]	not voted on[89]	—	failed
New York	31	2009–10	S2286A / A1580B	not voted on[90]	passed[90]	—	failed
New York	29	2011	S4208 / A00489	passed committee[91]	passed[92]	—	pending
North Carolina	15	2007–08	H1645, S954	died in committee[93]	passed[46]	—	failed
North Carolina	15	2011–12	S639	—	in committee[94]	—	pending
Oklahoma	7	2011	SB 841	—	passed committee[95]	—	pending
Oregon	7	2009	HB 2588	passed[96]	died in committee	—	failed
Pennsylvania	20	2011	HB 1270, SB 1116	in committee[97]	in committee[98]	—	pending
Rhode Island	4	2008	H 7707, S 2112	passed[99]	passed[99]	vetoed[99]	failed
Rhode Island	4	2009	HB 5569, SB 161	failed[100][101]	passed[100]	—	failed
Rhode Island	4	2011	HB 5659, SB 164	passed committee[102]	passed[102]	—	pending
South Carolina	9	2011–12	S860, H4154	in committee[103]	in committee[104]	—	pending
Tennessee	11	2011	HB 1302, SB 1024	in committee[105]	in committee[105]	—	pending
Vermont	3	2007–08	H 373, S 270	passed[106]	passed[106]	vetoed[106]	failed
Vermont	3	2009–10	S 34	died in committee[107]	passed[107]	—	failed
Vermont	3	2011–12	S 31[108]	passed[109]	passed[109]	signed[110]	law
Washington	11	2007–08	HB 1750, SB 5628	died in committee[111]	passed[112]	—	failed
Washington	11	2009–10	HB 1598, SB 5599	passed[113]	passed[113]	signed	law
West Virginia	5	2011–12	SB 322, HB 2378	passed committee[114]	in committee[115]	—	pending

See also

• National Popular Vote Inc.
• United States Electoral College
• FairVote
• Every Vote Counts Amendment
• Electoral reform in the United States

Notes

1. ^ "The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote". Every Vote Equal. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EVE-CH-6.pdf. Retrieved 2010-12-22. 
2. ^ "Responsibilities of the States in the Presidential Election". U.S. Electoral College. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html#ascertain. Retrieved 2008-06-05. 
3. ^ "Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation-Harvard University: Survey of Political Independents" (PDF). The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/independents/post-kaiser-harvard-topline.pdf. Retrieved 2008-06-11. 
4. ^ "Americans Have Historically Favored Changing Way Presidents are Elected". Gallup. 2000-11-10. http://www.gallup.com/poll/2323/Americans-Historically-Favored-Changing-Way-Presidents-Elected.aspx. Retrieved 2008-06-11. 
5. ^ "Who Picks the President?". FairVote. http://www.fairvote.org/presidential/?page=1677. Retrieved 2008-06-11. 
6. ^ ^{a b c d} "Drop Out of the College". New York Times. 2006-03-14. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/opinion/14tue1.html. Retrieved 2008-06-11. 
7. ^ "Electoral College is outdated". Denver Post. 2007-04-09. http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5628615. Retrieved 2008-06-11. 
8. ^ ^{a b} Hill, David; McKee, Seth C. (2005). "The Electoral College, Mobilization, and Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election". American Politics Research. pp. 33:700–725. http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/700. Retrieved 2008-06-11. 
9. ^ "Committee for the Study of the American Electorate" (PDF). 2004-11-04. http://www.american.edu/ia/cdem/csae/pdfs/csae041104.pdf. Retrieved 2008-06-12. 
10. ^ Lopez, Mark Hugo; Kirby, Emily;Sagoff, Jared (July 2005). "The Youth Vote 2004" (PDF). http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Youth_Voting_72-04.pdf. Retrieved 2008-06-12. 
11. ^ "David Broder, on PBS Online News Hour's Campaign Countdown". 2000-11-06. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/bbo_11-6.html. Retrieved 2008-06-12. 
12. ^ ^{a b} "Electoral College should be maintained". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 2007-04-29. http://archives.starbulletin.com/2007/04/29/editorial/editorial02.html. Retrieved 2008-06-12. 
13. ^ Timothy Noah (2000-12-13). "Faithless Elector Watch: Gimme "Equal Protection"". Slate.com. http://www.slate.com/id/1006680. Retrieved 2008-06-12. 
14. ^ Longley, Lawrence D.; Peirce, Neal (1999). Electoral College Primer 2000. Yale University Press. http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300080360. ^{[dead link]}
15. ^ Levinson, Sanford (2006). Our Undemocratic Constitution. Oxford University Press. http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/?view=usa&ci=9780195307511. ^{[dead link]}
16. ^ "States Join Forces Against Electoral College". Los Angeles Times. 2006-06-05. https://caclean.org/problem/latimes_2006-06-05.php. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
17. ^ "A fix for the Electoral College". Boston Globe. 2008-02-18. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/02/18/a_fix_for_the_electoral_college/. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
18. ^ "How to drop out of the Electoral College: There's a way to ensure top vote-getter becomes president". Minneapolis Star Tribune. 2006-03-27. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/editorials/minneapolisstartribune.php. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
19. ^ ^{a b c d e} du Pont, Pete (2006-08-29). "Trash the 'Compact'". Wall Street Journal. http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008855. Retrieved 2008-06-27. 
20. ^ "National Popular Vote Compact Suggested Resource List". http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12542. 
21. ^ "Who Picks the President?" (PDF). FairVote. http://archive.fairvote.org/media/research/who_picks_president.pdf. Retrieved 09-11-2011. 
22. ^ FairVote.org | What is the National Popular Vote Plan?: Facts & FAQ's
23. ^ ^{a b} "National Popular Vote" (PDF). National Popular Vote. 2007-06-01. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/7-Page-NPV-Memo-V33-2007-6-1.pdf. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
24. ^ Hertzberg, Hendrik (2006-03-06). "Count 'Em". The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/06/060306ta_talk_hertzberg. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
25. ^ Anuzis, Saul (2006-05-26). "ANUZIS: Conservatives need the popular vote". Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/26/anuzis-conservatives-need-the-popular-vote/. Retrieved 2011-06-03. 
26. ^ Hertzberg, Hendrik (2011-06-13). "Misguided "objectivity" on n.p.v". New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2011/06/misguided-objectivity-on-npv.html. Retrieved 2011-06-21. 
27. ^ SB-37, quoted on page 8
28. ^ "NewsWatch". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 2007-04-24. http://archives.starbulletin.com/2007/04/24/news/briefs.html. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
29. ^ "What's Wrong With the Popular Vote?". Hawaii Reporter. 2007-04-11. Archived from the original on January 10, 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080110014711/http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6ddf1e11-986b-4a18-ab2d-dac2925fbcaa. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
30. ^ "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion". http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html. "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter." 
31. ^ "Who Are the Top 20 Legal Thinkers in America?". Legal Affairs. http://www.legalaffairs.org/poll/. Retrieved 2008-07-04. 
32. ^ Gringer, David (2008). "Why the National Popular Vote Plan Is the Wrong Way to Abolish the Electoral College" (PDF). Columbia Law Review 108 (1). http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/108/1/Gringer.pdf. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
33. ^ Shane, Peter (2006-05-16). "Democracy's Revenge? Bush v. Gore and the National Popular Vote". Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/comments/2006/060516.php. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
34. ^ Raskin, Jamie (2008). "Neither the Red States nor the Blue States but the United States: The National Popular Vote and American Political Democracy" (PDF). Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy (Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.) 7 (3): 188. doi:10.1089/elj.2008.7304. http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/elj.2008.7304. Retrieved 2009-12-06. 
35. ^ "Background on Interstate Compacts" (PDF). Every Vote Equal. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EVE-CH-5.pdf. Retrieved 2008-06-15. 
36. ^ Muller, Derek T. (November 2007). "The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy (Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.) 6 (4): 372–393. doi:10.1089/elj.2007.6403. http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2007.6403. Retrieved 2008-06-15. 
37. ^ National Popular Vote Inc.. "Myths about Congressional Consent". http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m15.php. Retrieved 2010-10-15. 
38. ^ Popular Election of the President Without a Constitutional Amendment by Robert Bennett :: SSRN
39. ^ "HOW TO ACHIEVE DIRECT NATIONAL ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION: Part Three Of A Three-part Series On The 2000 Election And The Electoral College". Findlaw. 2001. http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/amar/20011228.html. Retrieved 2009-03-16. 
40. ^ "Count 'Em". New Yorker. 2006-03-06. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/06/060306ta_talk_hertzberg. Retrieved 2011-06-21. 
41. ^ ^{a b c} "Arkansas". National Popular Vote, Inc.. 2009. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=AR. Retrieved 2008-06-06. 
42. ^ ^{a b c d} "Complete Bill History (SB 37)". California Legislature. 2007. http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_37&sess=0708&house=B&site=sen. Retrieved 23 December 2010. 
43. ^ ^{a b c} "Summarized History for Bill Number SB07-046". Colorado Legislature. 2007. http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2007a/csl.nsf/billsummary/2B2373A5793D58768725725700645078?opendocument. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
44. ^ ^{a b c d e} "Bill Status of HB1685". Illinois General Assembly. 2008. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1685&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=30508&SessionID=51&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=95. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
45. ^ ^{a b c d} "Bill Search (Bill A4225 from Session 2006-07)". New Jersey Legislature. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/Default.asp. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
46. ^ ^{a b} "Senate Bill 954". North Carolina. 2008. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=s954. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
47. ^ ^{a b c d} "Hawaii SB 1956, 2007". http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2007/status/SB1956.htm. Retrieved 2008-06-06. 
48. ^ "Maryland sidesteps electoral college". MSNBC. 2007-04-11. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18053715/. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
49. ^ "New Jersey Rejects Electoral College". CBS News (CBS). 2008-01-13. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/13/politics/main3706884.shtml. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
50. ^ ^{a b c} "Hawaii SB 2898, 2008". http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=SB2898. ^{[dead link]}
51. ^ National Popular Vote - Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
52. ^ National Popular Vote - Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
53. ^ National Popular Vote - Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
54. ^ National Popular Vote - Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
55. ^ ^{a b} Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. - Newsroom
56. ^ National Popular Vote - Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
57. ^ "California Initiative Update". California Secretary of State. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm. Retrieved 2007-12-19. 
58. ^ "SB 39, Bill History/Action for 27th Legislature". The Alaska State Legislature. 2011. http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_complete_bill.asp?session=27&bill=SB39. Retrieved 2011-04-18. 
59. ^ ^{a b} "Bill Status History". Arkansas State Legislature. 2009. http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HB1339. Retrieved 2009-02-14. 
60. ^ ^{a b c} "Complete Bill History (AB 2948)". California Legislature. 2006. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2901-2950/ab_2948_bill_20060930_history.html. Retrieved 2007-01-28. 
61. ^ ^{a b} "Complete Bill History: A.B. No. 459". California Legislature. 2011. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_459_bill_20110808_history.html. Retrieved 2011-08-09. 
62. ^ "Summarized History for Bill Number SB06-223". Colorado Legislature. 2006. http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics2006a/csl.nsf/billsummary/B8FDCF0ACAD0DE3687257131007F0795. Retrieved 2008-06-05. 
63. ^ ^{a b} "Colorado Senate Kills National Popular Vote Bill". Ballot Access News. http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/05/03/colorado-senate-kills-national-popular-vote-bill/. Retrieved 2011-05-03. 
64. ^ "HB 6437". Connecticut General Assembly. 2009. http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB06437&which_year=2009. Retrieved 2011-03-16. 
65. ^ ^{a b} "Council of the District (Search for B18-0769)". Council of the District of Columbia. 2009. http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/searchbylegislation.aspx. Retrieved 2010-12-21. 
66. ^ ^{a b} "House Bill #198". Delaware General Assembly. 2009. http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS145.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+198?Opendocument. Retrieved 2009-06-25. 
67. ^ ^{a b} "House Bill #55". Delaware General Assembly. 2011. http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis146.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+55. Retrieved 2011-04-08. 
68. ^ "House Bill 667". Georgia Legislation. 2011. http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display.aspx?Legislation=34618. Retrieved 2011-05-01. 
69. ^ "HB 234". Hawaii Legislature. 2007. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2007/status/HB234.htm. 
70. ^ "HB 3013". Hawaii Legislature. 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-06-20. http://web.archive.org/web/20080620132138/http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=HB3013. 
71. ^ "Bill Status of HB0858". Illinois General Assembly. 2008. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=858&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=28263&SessionID=51. 
72. ^ "Senate File 277". Iowa Legislature. 2011. http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=BillInfo&Service=Billbook&ga=84&hbill=SF277. Retrieved 2011-05-01. 
73. ^ "SB 242". Kansas Legislature. 2011. http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/year1/measures/sb242/. Retrieved 2011-05-04. 
74. ^ "Status of LD 1744". Maine Legislature. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280024656. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
75. ^ "Maine Senate passes National Popular Vote plan". Ballot Access News. 2008-04-02. http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/04/02/maine-senate-passes-national-popular-vote-plan/. 
76. ^ ^{a b c} "House Bill 148". Maryland. 2007. http://mlis.state.md.us/2007rs/billfile/HB0148.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
77. ^ "Senate, No. 445". Massachusetts Legislature. 2008. http://www.mass.gov/legis/185history/s00445.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-14. 
78. ^ "House, No. 4952". Massachusetts Legislature. 2008. http://www.mass.gov/legis/185history/h04952.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-23. 
79. ^ "Senate". Ballot-Access.org. 2008. http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/31/massachusetts-national-popular-vote-bill/. Retrieved 2008-07-31. 
80. ^ Viser, Matt (2008-08-01). "Legislature agrees to back Pike finances". The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/08/01/legislature_agrees_to_back_pike_finances/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7. Retrieved 2008-08-11.  Although the bill passed both houses, the senate vote to send the bill to the governor did not take place before the end of the legislative session.
81. ^ "House, No. 4156". Massachusetts General Court. 2010. http://www.mass.gov/legis/186history/h04156.htm. Retrieved 2010-06-11. 
82. ^ Andersen, Travis (2010-07-16). "Winner-take-all bill is OK'd by state Senate". The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/16/winner_take_all_bill_is_okd_by_state_senate/. 
83. ^ ^{a b} "House Bill 6610 (2008)". Michigan Legislature. 2008. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(vmautibsxql4axn51jy0mqiq))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2008-HB-6610&query=on. Retrieved 2008-12-11. 
84. ^ "SF1241 Status in Senate for Legislative Session 87". 2011. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF1241&ssn=0&y=2011. Retrieved 2011-06-20. 
85. ^ "LB583". Nebraska Legislature. 2011. http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=11917. Retrieved 2011-04-25. 
86. ^ AB413
87. ^ "HB383". New Mexico Legislature. 2009. http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/_session.aspx?Chamber=H&LegType=B&LegNo=383&year=09. Retrieved 2009-02-14. 
88. ^ Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » New Mexico House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
89. ^ Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » New Mexico Legislature Adjourns Without Passing National Popular Vote Plan
90. ^ ^{a b} "S02286-2009". New York Senate. 2010. Archived from the original on 2010-05-27. http://web.archive.org/web/20100527222758/http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2286A. Retrieved 2011-02-14. 
91. ^ "A00489 Summary". New York State Assembly. 2011. http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A00489&term=2011&Summary=Y&Actions=Y. Retrieved 2011-03-14. 
92. ^ "S4208 Summary". New York State Assembly. 2011. http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S04208&term=2011&Summary=Y&Actions=Y. Retrieved 2011-06-07. 
93. ^ "House Bill 1645". North Carolina General Assembly. 2008. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=h1645. Retrieved 2008-07-22. 
94. ^ "Senate Bill 639". North Carolina General Assembly. 2011. http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=S639. Retrieved 2011-05-01. 
95. ^ "SB 841". Oklahoma Legislature. 2011. http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SB841. Retrieved 2011-04-15. 
96. ^ "Search for Specific Measure Number". Oregon State Legislature. 2007. http://www.leg.state.or.us/searchmeas.html. Retrieved 2008-07-14. 
97. ^ "HB1270". Pennsylvania Legislature. 2011. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2011&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=1270. Retrieved 2011-07-18. 
98. ^ "Senate Bill 1116". Pennsylvania Legislature. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/BillInfo.cfm?syear=2011&sind=0&body=S&type=B&bn=1116. Retrieved 2011-07-18. 
99. ^ ^{a b c} "Legislative Status Report (see 7707, 2112)". Rhode Island Legislature. 2008. http://dirac.rilin.state.ri.us/BillStatus/WebClass1.ASP?WCI=BillStatus&WCE=ifrmBillStatus&WCU. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
100. ^ ^{a b} "Legislative status report". Rhode Island Legislature. 2009. http://dirac.rilin.state.ri.us/BillStatus/WebClass1.ASP?WCI=Index&WCE=callBillStatus&WCU&. Retrieved 2009-05-25. 
101. ^ Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » Rhode Island House Defeats National Popular Vote Bill
102. ^ ^{a b} "Legislative status report (see HB 5659/SB 164)". Rhode Island Legislature. 2011. http://dirac.rilin.state.ri.us/BillStatus/WebClass1.ASP?WCI=BillStatus&WCE=ifrmBillStatus&WCU. Retrieved 2011-05-01. 
103. ^ "H 4154". South Carolina Legislature. 2011. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=4154&session=119&summary=T. Retrieved 2011-05-01. 
104. ^ "S 860". South Carolina Legislature. 2011. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=860&session=119&summary=T. Retrieved 2011-05-01. 
105. ^ ^{a b} "SB 1024/HB 1302". Tennessee General Assembly. 2011. http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1024. Retrieved 2011-05-01. 
106. ^ ^{a b c} "The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System (S.270)". http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/status.cfm. Retrieved 2008-06-05. 
107. ^ ^{a b} "The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System (S.34)". http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/status.cfm. Retrieved 2009-04-30. 
108. ^ "Text of S31". Vermont Legislature. 2011. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/bills/VT-S31-Bill-2011-Miller-Jan-2011.pdf. Retrieved 2011-02-28. 
109. ^ ^{a b} "S31". Vermont Legislature. 2011. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=S%2E0031&Session=2012. Retrieved 2011-02-28. 
110. ^ "Vermont Is Eighth State to Enact National Popular Vote Bill". BusinessWire. April 22, 2011. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110422005311/en/Vermont-Eighth-State-Enact-National-Popular-Vote. Retrieved April 22, 2011. 
111. ^ "HB1750, 2007-08". Washington State Legislature. 2008. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1750&year=2007. Retrieved 2008-07-14. 
112. ^ "SB5628". Washington Legislature. 2008. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5628&year=2007. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
113. ^ ^{a b} "SB5599, 2009". Washington State Legislature. 2009. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5599&year=2009. Retrieved 2009-01-23. 
114. ^ "HB2378". West Virginia Legislature. 2011. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/Bills_history.cfm?input=2378&year=2011&sessiontype=RS&btype=bill. Retrieved 2011-04-20. 
115. ^ "SB322". West Virginia Legislature. 2011. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/Bills_history.cfm?input=322&year=2011&sessiontype=RS&btype=bill. Retrieved 2011-04-20. 

External links

• Election Law Journal Symposium on National Popular Vote
• National Popular Vote
• Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote - text of the interstate compact
• Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote - read or download book for free
• FairVote
• Common Cause
• Electoral College legislation at the National Conference of State Legislatures