What Is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among states to award all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide. It takes effect only when states with a combined majority of the Electoral College (270 electoral votes) have joined. As of 2026, 18 states and D.C., with 222 electoral votes, have signed on, leaving the compact 48 short.
Why it exists
Twice in the last seven presidential elections, in 2000 and 2016, the popular-vote winner lost in the Electoral College. Abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, and every attempt has failed.
The compact takes a different route. The Constitution lets each state legislature decide how to appoint its electors, the same power that lets Maine and Nebraska split their votes. If enough states agree to back the national winner, that candidate is guaranteed a majority of electors. The Electoral College stays in place, but it follows the popular vote.
The plan was launched in 2006 by National Popular Vote Inc., a group founded by computer scientist John Koza. Maryland became the first state to join, in 2007.
How it works
- Trigger: Nothing changes until states with 270 electoral votes have enacted the compact. Until then, members award their electors as they always have.
- Counting: Once the compact is in effect, each member state’s chief election official adds up the certified popular vote from all 50 states and D.C. and appoints the slate of electors pledged to the national winner, even if a different candidate carried that state.
- Ties: In the unlikely event of an exact national tie, member states award their electors to their own statewide winner.
- Withdrawal: A state can leave, but a withdrawal made after July 20 of a presidential election year doesn’t take effect until after that election.
Who has joined
| State | Joined | Electoral votes |
|---|---|---|
| Maryland | 2007 | 10 |
| New Jersey | 2008 | 14 |
| Illinois | 2008 | 19 |
| Hawaii | 2008 | 4 |
| Washington | 2009 | 12 |
| Massachusetts | 2010 | 11 |
| District of Columbia | 2010 | 3 |
| Vermont | 2011 | 3 |
| California | 2011 | 54 |
| Rhode Island | 2013 | 4 |
| New York | 2014 | 28 |
| Connecticut | 2018 | 7 |
| Colorado | 2019 | 10 |
| Delaware | 2019 | 3 |
| New Mexico | 2019 | 5 |
| Oregon | 2019 | 8 |
| Minnesota | 2023 | 10 |
| Maine | 2024 | 4 |
| Virginia | 2026 | 13 |
| Total | 222 |
Colorado voters upheld the state’s membership in a 2020 referendum, 52% to 48%. Nevada’s legislature approved a constitutional amendment to join in 2023, but didn’t pass it a second time in 2025, as required to send it to voters.
Every member voted for the Democratic ticket in 2024, and most of the states still needed to reach 270 are Republican-controlled or battlegrounds. That’s the compact’s biggest obstacle. Reapportionment after the 2030 census will also shift electoral votes among states before the 2032 election.
The case for it
- Every vote would count equally, no matter where it was cast.
- Candidates would have a reason to campaign nationwide instead of concentrating on a handful of battleground states, where the vast majority of 2024 general-election campaign events took place.
- The candidate with the most votes would always become president.
Supporters include National Popular Vote Inc., Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, along with some Republicans, such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
The case against it
- Constitutional questions. The Constitution’s Compact Clause requires congressional consent for some agreements among states. Opponents argue this compact needs it; supporters say it doesn’t. The question would likely end up in court if the compact took effect.
- Recounts. A razor-thin national result could require recounts across the country under 51 different sets of rules, with no national mechanism to run them.
- Different rules. States set their own voting laws on registration, early voting and voter ID, so a national total adds up votes cast under different conditions.
- Small-state influence. Critics argue small and rural states would lose the leverage the Electoral College gives them.
- Plurality winners. The compact has no runoff, so a candidate could win with well under 50% in a crowded field.
- Electors against their state. A member state could have to cast its electoral votes for a candidate its own voters rejected.