Virginia is the latest state to join the National Popular Vote Pact. Members of the pact are committed to assigning their Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote. If you haven’t heard about this pact, you are not alone. Is this an attempt to make elections fair or to disenfranchise voters in the smaller states? Let’s take a look.
What Is The National Popular Vote Pact?
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among U.S. states to award their Electoral College votes to the nationwide popular vote winner, rather than to the winner in each state. It is not a federal law but a state‑level compact that only takes effect once enough states join. The compact guarantees that the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide becomes president, without abolishing the Electoral College. States keep running their own elections, but they pledge their electors to the national vote winner.
How Does This Work?
- Each participating state passes a law joining the compact.
- The compact activates only when member states total at least 270 electoral votes—the number needed to win the presidency.
- Until that threshold is reached, the compact has no legal effect.
Supporters say the compact:
- Ensures one-person-one-vote in presidential elections.
- Prevents a candidate from winning the presidency while losing the national popular vote.
- Reduces the outsized influence of swing states.
Opponents raise concerns about:
- Potential legal challenges.
- States ceding control over their own electors.
- The compact is activating without a broad national consensus.
Current Status
As of April 2026:
- 18 states + Washington, D.C. have enacted the compact.
- Combined, they control 222 electoral votes—48 short of activation.
- Virginia became the most recent state to join in April 2026.
Is This Constitutional?
The purpose of the Electoral College is to provide a constitutional mechanism for electing the President and Vice President that balances power between large and small states, the people and the states, and direct democracy and filtered judgment. At its core, it was designed as a compromise between electing the president by Congress and by a direct national popular vote.
Each state receives electors equal to:
- The number of House members (population-based)
- Plus two Senators (state equality)
This ensures:
- Large states have more influence because of their population
- Small states still have a meaningful voice because of their Senate-based electors
This structure prevents a handful of populous regions from dominating presidential elections.
Supporters of the National Popular Vote Pact rely on two constitutional provisions:
- Article II, Section 1 — states may appoint electors “in such manner as the legislature… may direct.”
- Article I, Section 10 — governs interstate compacts; Supreme Court precedent says congressional approval is needed only if a compact infringes federal power.
Supporters argue this compact does not infringe federal power because the appointment of electors is a state authority.
Does The Pact Disenfranchise Voters?
It can feel like disenfranchisement at first glance, but under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), no individual voter’s ballot is changed, canceled, or overwritten. What changes is how the state allocates its electors, not how people vote. Whether this “disenfranchises” voters depends on how you define the term — and both sides make strong arguments.
The compact requires a state to award its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, even if that candidate did not win that state. For example, if the compact had been active in 2024, Virginia, which voted for Kamala Harris, would have had to award its electors to Donald Trump because he won the national popular vote.
Supporters argue that the current Electoral College system is what distorts voter power:
- Every vote nationwide would count equally, regardless of state.
- Under the current Electoral College, millions of votes in “safe” states effectively don’t matter because the outcome is predetermined.
- The compact ensures the Electoral College result always matches the national popular vote, preventing “wrong‑winner” outcomes (e.g., 2000, 2016).
- States already have full constitutional authority to choose any method of awarding electors.
- The compact increases voter equality by making every vote count toward the national outcome.
Opponents argue that the compact forces a state to ignore its own voters’ choice:
- A state’s electors could be awarded to a candidate who lost that state, which feels like nullifying the state’s democratic decision.
- Voters expect their state’s electors to reflect their state’s results, not the nation’s.
- The compact could be enacted without a broad national consensus, raising legitimacy concerns.
- Critics also argue the compact is unstable and could swing in or out of effect depending on census reapportionment or state repeals.
- Awarding electors to someone the state did not choose is a form of disenfranchisement because it severs the link between a voter’s ballot and their state’s electoral outcome.
There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. The difference is in how both sides define “voter power.”
The Catholic View
Jesus consistently evaluates systems — political, religious, or social — through three core lenses:
- Does this system honor the dignity of every person? Any system that shapes leadership would be measured by whether it protects the value of each person’s voice, especially those most easily overlooked.
- Will this system promote truth, justice, and integrity? He calls for leaders to be transparent, honest, and accountable.
- Does this system encourage love of neighbor across boundaries? He challenges tribalism and calls people into a larger moral community.
The legitimacy of any electoral system — old or new — rests not on partisan advantage but on whether it honors human dignity, protects the vulnerable, strengthens unity, and promotes justice rooted in truth. We call all people of goodwill to examine their motives, purify their intentions, and seek the peace of the community God has entrusted to us.
In this case, 18 states have joined the pact. Every state that has joined to date is considered a “blue state,” meaning leaning Democratic. The imbalance in the pact is concerning and raises questions of fairness. Is this pact driven politically or as an effort to improve fairness in elections? The other question that comes to mind is that the Electoral College has been in place for almost 250 years, with relatively little consternation until the past 20 years. Why now? I report, you decide.
Please share your thoughts about this article in the “Comments” section.
Peace
If you like this article, you might also enjoy:
PFAS: Texas Opens Investigation Into Lulumon
Pro-Life Groups Targeted By Biden’s Justice Department
New York City’s Growing Homeless Problem
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In