Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger committed Virginia to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact on Monday, which would tie Virginia’s Electoral College votes to those of California or another densely populated state even if Virginians vote the opposite way.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would “guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.” There are now 18 states (and Washington, D.C.) signed on to the compact, which is not yet in effect since it has yet to meet the 270 electoral vote threshold. But if a few more states join the compact, Virginia (like every other state in the compact) would no longer award its Electoral College votes based on how Virginians vote. Instead, states would award their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote, regardless of how the individual state votes.
Currently, 48 states (not including Maine and Nebraska) allocate all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote within the state, which, of course, is not always the same candidate who wins the popular vote nationally. The system was designed to ensure that candidates could not win on regional density alone, but rather would need a geographic balance. This mechanism forces candidates to take into consideration the varying interests, economies, and industries of all states, not just a few larger states.
But the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would effectively allow a handful of densely populated states, like California and New York, to dictate the outcome of the election despite both states having vastly different interests from states like Idaho, Nebraska, or Oklahoma.
The founders understood that smaller states would need robust protections of their access to political representation, which is why the founders came up with the system in the first place. Such a system was designed to prevent the “tyranny of the majority,” as Madison warned. Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68, arguing such a process was a safeguard against “cabal, intrigue, and corruption.”
James Madison warned in Federalist No. 10 that under a “popular government,” a majority faction could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.”
In fact, as The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood pointed out in these pages, the founders would likely have declined to ratify the Constitution itself in the absence of “such protections for smaller states.” But the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact undermines such protections and would leave so-called “flyover states” politically irrelevant and at the mercy of fellow citizens who may not have the same interests or needs.
As Fleetwood noted, though, the reason Democrats are willing to commit their constituents to such a pact is that the Electoral College “deprives [Democrats] of the unbridled power to silence all opposition. There’s no need to waste time campaigning to the rubes in ‘flyover country’ if they can juice turnout in Democrat-heavy cities and states instead.”
