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: Would National Popular Vote work with Ranked Choice or Approval Voting?

A: Yes, it would! With approval voting, whichever candidate receives the most votes across the country would win. You would simply be afforded the option to voice your approval for more than one candidate in states with approval voting.

Advocates for both National Popular Vote and Ranked Choice Voting are working together to create what will be known as the “Interstate RCV Compact”. The compact would allow member states to immediately tally ballots down to two candidates and have the results integrated to a National Popular Vote. Combining these two methods would create a very robust system that would eliminate popular/electoral vote splits and correct the “vote-splitting” we see with more than two candidates on the ballot.

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/