shutterstock_101681578.png
 

“I would rather have the popular vote because it's, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote”

- PRESIDENT TRUMP

Join Us

As conservatives who support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, we proudly advocate our conservatism because we know our values, ideas and policies are the best for the country. We believe America is a right-of-center country that is pro-life, pro-gun and believes in limited government. We believe we can and will win under state-based reforms that allow conservative candidates to carry a commonsense message to voters in all 50 states.

National Popular Vote is an interstate compact that fully preserves the states’ power under Article 2, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to award presidential electors in a manner consistent with the Electoral College as created by the Founding Fathers. National Popular Vote seeks state legislative support to award each state’s electors to the candidate who wins the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Our mission is to make every conservative politically relevant in every presidential election.

If you agree with us that EVERY pro-life vote should count, that EVERY pro-gun should count, and that EVERY vote for limited government should count, then please join us in supporting the National Popular Vote.

Our Proposal

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact guarantees the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election. The compact is a state-based approach that fully preserves the Electoral College, state control of elections, and the power of the states to control how the president is elected.

National Popular Vote has been enacted by 16 states with 195 electoral votes, including four small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), eight medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), three big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia. It will take effect when enacted by states with 75 more electoral votes for a total of 270 electoral votes. The bill has passed at least one chamber in nine additional states with 88 more electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK, VA). A total of 3,522 state legislators from all 50 states have endorsed it.

The shortcomings of the current method of electing the president stem from the state-based winner-take-all method that has been enacted by state legislatures in 48 states. This method awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state.

Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. In 2012, all of the 253 general election campaign events were in just 12 states with a full two-thirds in just four states. Thirty-eight states were completely ignored.

State winner-take-all adversely affects governance. Battleground states receive 7% more federal grants than spectator states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind exemptions.

A shift of just 59,393 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected John Kerry, despite President Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes.

Under the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1), states have the exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes (“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors ...”). The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is a state law. It is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is not the method of the Founding Fathers. In fact, winner-take-all was used by only three states in 1789 — and all three repealed it by 1800. It was not until the 11th presidential election of 1828 that even half the states were using winner-take-all. Presently, two states — Maine and Nebraska — use a method other than winner-take-all. Just as their method isn't unconstitutional, neither is National Popular Vote.

As an interstate compact, National Popular Vote will go into effect when enacted by states possessing a majority (270) of the electoral votes (538) needed to elect the president. At that time, the votes of every voter in every state will count toward their choice for president.  The candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states will become president. In contrast, under the current method, a voter has a voice in electing only the small number of presidential electors to which their state is entitled.

Q & A

As is the case with any election reform or any change to the election system, people have questions about how NPV fits into the current legal framework for elections, about the mechanics of NPV for both voters and election administrators, and about the political implications of NPV. How could such a significant change to the American election system mesh with the law and with the country’s voting traditions? 

Q: Is National Popular Vote Constitutional?

A: Yes. National Popular Vote will simply change the way states award their electoral votes, and the Constitution explicitly grants states that right. Article II, Section I states: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” (1) This states’ right was further confirmed in the 1892 Supreme Court case McPherson v. Blacker. In which the Supreme Court ruled that States’ legislatures have the “plenary” right to appoint electoral votes as they wish. (2)

Q: Do small states win with NPV?

A: Yes! The 13 states with only three or four electoral votes are the most disadvantaged and ignored group of states under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. (3) Ohio has about the same population as 12 of these states combined, but fewer than half of their electoral votes. Despite that, Ohio received 73 of 253 post-convention campaign events in 2012, while the 12 small non-battleground states received none. (4)

Q: Does NPV put rural voters at parity with urban voters?

A: Yes! The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes diminishes the influence of rural states because none of the ten most rural states are closely divided battleground states and the battleground states that receive attention in presidential campaigns are generally not rural. (5)

Q: Will NPV force candidates to campaign in all 50 states?

A: Yes! In the 2012 general election campaign for President, four out of five states were completely ignored. Obama campaigned in only eight states after his nomination, and Romney campaigned in only ten. (6) There is simply no benefit for a presidential candidate to spend limited campaign time and money visiting, advertising in, and building a grassroots organization in a state in order to win that state with 58% of its popular vote as compared to 55%. Similarly, it does not help a presidential candidate to lose a state with 45% of a state’s popular vote as compared to, say, 42%. National Popular Vote would make each of those percentages, and the voters they represent, relevant to all candidates’ campaigns. (7)

Q: But we’re a republic. Doesn’t that mean we can’t elect a president by popular vote?

A: Yes, we are a republic. But, that doesn’t preclude us from electing a president by a popular vote.  According to James Madison in Federalist 10, the defining difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that the former elects representatives to assemble and administer the government, while the latter is accomplished directly by the citizens. (8) As a representative position, so long as the President is elected by the people, the manner in which they are elected does not change the Union’s status as a Republic.

  1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, section I, clauses 1 and 2. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/provisions

  2. Supreme Court. McPherson v. Blacker. 146 U.S. 1 at 36. 1892. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/146/1/

  3. Koza, John R., et al. Every Vote Equal: A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, 4th ed., National Popular Vote Press, 2013, pp. 457. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/

  4. Koza, John R., et al. Every Vote Equal: A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, 4th ed., National Popular Vote Press, 2013, pp. 444. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ 

  5. Koza, John R., et al. Every Vote Equal: A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, 4th ed., National Popular Vote Press, 2013, pp. 469. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ 

  6. Koza, John R., et al. Every Vote Equal: A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, 4th ed., National Popular Vote Press, 2013, pp. 33. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ 

  7. Koza, John R., et al. Every Vote Equal: A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, 4th ed., National Popular Vote Press, 2013, pp. 434. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ 

  8. Madison, James. Federalist No. 10. The Federalist. George W. Carey and James McClellan. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2001. 351–52. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178/

Our Team

 

Patrick Rosenstiel

  • Regional political director of the Steve Forbes 1996 presidential campaign.

  • Ran the campaign for the California School Voucher Initiative - Proposition 38.

  • Directed grassroots efforts across the West and Midwest to garner Senate support for U.S. Supreme Court candidates John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

 

Dr. Kent Kaiser

  • Holds a life membership in the NRA.

  • Former board member of the Minnesota Christian Coalition.

  • Organized young conservatives as a faculty adviser for campus chapters of Students Supporting Israel, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Young Americans for Freedom, Students for Liberty, and Students for a Conservative Voice.