As Americans head to the polls today, there’s an unusual path to victory that could see Donald Trump winning the presidency even if he loses the Electoral College vote. This scenario hinges on an emerging framework known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), a state-led initiative aimed at ensuring that the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote ultimately becomes President of the United States. If Trump wins the popular vote but Kamala Harris secures the Electoral College, Republican-led states could, theoretically, adopt the NPVIC in a last-minute bid to put Trump in office.
The U.S. Electoral College has long been a point of contention, especially for its ability to produce a president who didn’t win the popular vote. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, yet Donald Trump became president by securing the majority of electoral votes. In 2024, the inverse could occur, with some polls showing Trump narrowly leading in the national popular vote but Harris on track to win the Electoral College. Ordinarily, this would mean a victory for Harris, but the NPVIC offers a potential workaround.
The NPVIC is a legislative agreement between states that promises to award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, not the candidate who wins in that particular state. However, the compact only takes effect once enough states have joined to secure the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Currently, 16 states and Washington, D.C. have joined the compact, representing 205 electoral votes—about 75% of the 270-vote threshold needed for the NPVIC to be effective.
If Trump wins the popular vote today but loses the Electoral College, Republican states could theoretically push through legislation to join the NPVIC, retroactively shifting the outcome in Trump’s favor. While this move would be highly controversial, it could prove effective if additional states with a combined 65 electoral votes join the compact, allowing the NPVIC to reach the 270-vote threshold needed to determine the outcome.
Such a maneuver would be unprecedented and would likely face numerous legal challenges. Critics argue that adopting the NPVIC after an election may be unconstitutional and could lead to a protracted legal battle in federal courts, and would most likely reach the Supreme Court. But in an election year marked by fierce partisanship, some Republican-led states might still be willing to try.
The idea of electing presidents based on the national popular vote has broad support. A 2020 Pew Research Center poll found that 58% of Americans favor replacing the Electoral College with a system based solely on the national popular vote. The NPVIC appeals to those who believe that the will of the people should directly determine the presidency, and its proponents argue that it aligns with the democratic principle of “one person, one vote.”
Since Maryland became the first state to adopt the NPVIC in 2007, interest has grown steadily, especially in the wake of close elections. In 2019 alone, four states joined the compact. Should additional states push the NPVIC over the 270-vote mark, it would leave the Electoral College intact in name but functionally bind electors to the national popular vote winner.
If Republican states attempt to adopt the NPVIC after today’s election, it would likely trigger a constitutional crisis. Legal scholars point out that the compact could require congressional consent due to its impact on the federal electoral process, which is not currently part of the compact’s framework. Should the situation arise, the Supreme Court could be asked to rule on the compact’s constitutionality and whether a post-election enactment is legitimate.
The outcome of this election could spark a fundamental debate about the future of the Electoral College. If Trump loses the Electoral College but wins the popular vote, Republican efforts to push through the NPVIC could fuel calls for either reforming or abolishing the Electoral College entirely. Such a scenario would be a first in U.S. history and would underscore the flaws and complexities of the current system.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
There is a 50% chance that Trump wins according to Nate Silver, 538, The Economist, etc., but that’s electoral college. They give him a 30% chance of winning the popular vote. And the chance he wins the popular vote and not the electoral vote is less than 1% as he is strong is states with small populations. It’s a cool theory, but less likely than an we electoral tie.
You lifted this “story” from someplace but you didn’t have the guts to put down where you lifted it from. NO ONE at YWN is smart enough to come up with something like this by themselves. To me it looks like you lifted it from some place with a lot of dreams, even possibly a Democrat leaning publication that is only telegraphing what they want.
I don’t know about “no riots”, this sounds like a recipe for tons of riots or worse. Plus, it won’t actually work, since the legislatures in blue states can just as easily meet to withdraw from the pact and make it ineffective again.
Pipe dream that for sure will not happen
The Democrats have won the popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. It seems like a terrible idea for Republicans to join such a pact. I do wonder if there are millions of people who skip voting because they live in non-swing states and therefore they feel their vote doesn’t matter and it’s a waste of time. If that’s the case, it’s possible that the majority of them would vote Republican, and by changing the system to a popular vote you would increase their turnout. But I wouldn’t gamble on it.
What I find most interesting about this article, is that somebody wrote this to try to use reverse psychology on Republicans to get them to accept the compact.
It’s just asinine.
For starters, the compact has a delayed action clause. This would give a Specific amount of time after the compact is ratified in more than 25 states before it would actually take affect.
Secondly, the idea that the Donald would win the popular vote, but not the college is absolutely whack.
Thirdly, the premise of the article and the headline feeds into this liberal narrative that Republicans will riot if orange man loses. I see no indication of that and January 6 is an extreme outlier with lots of question marks that still remain unanswered.
Furthermore, the fact that YWN didn’t credit the source of the article indicates one of two things: either YWN is extremely disingenuous and unethical, and does not credit their sources (unlikely because they have credited their sources in the past) or the source for this article (among many other similarly unattributed articles) prefers to remain uncredited. This would be perhaps an election campaign or a PAC or another source who understands that their material would likely be discredited by the readers if they knew who wrote it.
Therefore, I call on YWN to do the right thing and credit their sources so that A) people can discern which articles are credible, and which are not and B) YWN does not lose their credibility on articles that they actually write.
Let’s not discount the possibility that someone at YWN spent a lot of time and effort on this piece. Yet, that would raise the question, WHY?? This is a complete fantasy cooked up in someone’s fever dream reminiscent of the time they suggested that if DJT becomes Secretary of State he could invoke a vote to use the 25th amendment and then remove Biden from office and then remove Harris and then become president again. What a colossal waste of time. Both writing this article, and my valuable time reading it.
If Trump or Harris get more popular votes, but lose based on electoral college votes, that means they lost fair and square. Both of them have been trying to run up popular votes among their “base” in states where it doesn’t matter. The electoral college system is a major protector of minority rights and makes it very hard to cheat (bluntly, if the Democrats manage to fake lots of ballots in New York, Chicago and California – it doesn’t help them win the electoral vote).
A candidate losing in the electoral college because they didn’t understand the rules of the game would be like a baseball team complaining they lost the game since their runner on third base didn’t realize he could run home on a wild pitch.
@Zabachur: Well said!
It’s moot now, but had this scenario played out and Republicans tried to bring the pact to a majority, Democrat states that had already joined would have simply refused to comply with it.