For nearly two decades, efforts have been made to change the way the United States has always elected its presidents by creating a workaround to the Electoral College, the process of indirect popular election that has been used in every U.S. presidential election in history. A collection of states is now one step closer than four years ago to choosing a president by popular vote, after Maine signed a law in April to join the effort.
Under the nonpartisan National Popular Vote Compact, the most significant of the Electoral College reform proposals, states would agree to give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner — even if it doesn’t match the outcome in their state. For example, if a presidential candidate lost Colorado – one of 17 states in the compact – but won the national popular vote, Colorado voters would vote for that candidate.
A majority of Americans would prefer to elect the president by popular vote rather than by the Electoral College, the Pew Research Center found. This preference tends to be most pronounced when a president wins the popular vote but not the Electoral College, which has only happened five times, but twice since 2000. Former President Donald Trump was the last president to achieve such a result, winning around 3 million fewer votes. than Hillary Clinton in 2016, although he won the Electoral College by a considerable margin, 304 to 227.
Under the Electoral College system, there are a total of 538 electoral votes, distributed among the states in a manner that reflects each state’s congressional delegation, with one vote allocated to each member of the House, plus two more for the two senators. Most states have a winner-take-all system, meaning all of the state’s electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. (Maine and Nebraska are exceptions, awarding electoral votes individually by congressional district, with two votes going to the statewide winner.)
The electoral voting system is enshrined in the Constitution, and changing the law would require a constitutional amendment, an obstacle too difficult to overcome.
The National Popular Vote Compact will not take effect until signatory states reach 270 electoral votes, the magic number that represents a majority of the 538 at stake. The compact is still short of that number , but Alyssa Cass, a Democratic strategist and spokesperson for National Popular Vote, thinks the current iteration of the Electoral College is on its way out.
“Given the momentum we’ve had so far and where we are, 2024 could really be the last election where a president is not chosen by a national popular vote,” she told CBS News.
Here is a map showing the states that have signed the National Popular Vote Compact:
Getting to 270
Since 2006, the National Popular Vote Act has been enacted by 17 states and Washington, DC – here are the states that have accepted the pact so far:
- Delaware: 3 votes
- Hawaii: 4 votes
- Maine: 4 votes
- Rhode Island: 4 votes
- Vermont: 3 votes
- Colorado: 10 votes
- Connecticut: 7 votes
- Maryland: 10 votes
- Massachusetts: 11 votes
- Minnesota: 10 votes
- New Jersey: 14 votes
- New Mexico: 5 votes
- Oregon: 8 votes
- Washington: 12 votes
- California: 54 votes
- Illinois: 19 votes
- New York: 28 votes
- Washington, DC: 3 votes
Collectively, these states represent 209 electoral votes, still 61 short of the 270.
None of the states currently signing have a Republican majority. The national popular vote is courting the battleground state of Michigan, which would put them within 15 electoral votes. The bill is currently under consideration by the state legislature and could come up for a vote this session, Cass told CBS News. The national popular vote hopes it will pass, especially since it has the support of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
Although the bill was favored by Democratic-leaning states, Cass said that in almost every state where it passed, it was with a Republican co-sponsor or some Republican support.
“It’s for people who think the current system isn’t working, which is Republicans and Democrats,” she said.
If Michigan joined the pact, Cass predicted a domino effect that would prompt other battleground states, like Arizona and North Carolina, to follow suit. Both passed the National Popular Vote bill in at least one chamber. Cass and his team are also eyeing Nevada — where the bill passed both chambers — and Virginia.
Arguing over a national popular vote
According to the National Popular Vote, the Electoral College disadvantages people who live in predominantly red or blue states: Republicans in New York or Democrats in Texas, for example. They say more voters will go to the polls if they feel their vote carries more weight. A national popular vote would also put voters in less competitive states on equal footing with battleground states by giving them a greater role in determining the outcome, they argue.
“There is no better way to reinvigorate faith in our democracy than to return to the principle of one person, one vote,” Cass said. She is confident the national popular vote will cross the finish line after the November election.
The Democrats have a history of advocacy against the Electoral Collegewhich they say gives disproportionate power to smaller, redder states. (All 50 states each have two senators, regardless of their population size, which tips the scales slightly.) Republicans tend to oppose changing the Electoral College because they fear the outcome would tip in the other way, that voters in big blue states – like California or New York – would have more influence if the presidency was determined by popular vote.
On the other hand, big red states like Texas would also get more voting power.
Since 2000, two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College, spoiling their bids for the White House.
Under the current system, the outcome of elections usually comes down to the electoral votes in a handful of battleground states.
Arguments in favor of maintaining the electoral college
The Electoral College gives more weight to smaller, predominantly Republican states. If elections were decided by popular vote, Democrats would have a slight structural advantage. In 2024, according to the Pew Research Center, 49% of registered voters are Democrats or mostly Democrats, while 48% are Republicans or lean Republicans. Republicans fear that voters in big blue states like California or New York would no longer have influence if the presidency was determined by popular vote.
So if it’s the case now that candidates are spending all their time in general elections in states in the middle of the country – the battlegrounds of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, for example – abandoning the Electoral College would likely result in an urban population… The wealthy coastal states – California and New York – are attracting more attention. Large red-leaning states like Florida and Texas would also become increasingly important.
Other ways to change the electoral college
An option also being considered would be for each state to change how it distributes its votes. Most states have a “winner takes all” setup where the person who wins the popular vote in the state gets all the electoral college votes. Maine and Nebraska have their own unique system called the “congressional district method” in which the winner of each district gets one electoral vote and the winner of the entire state gets the remaining two electoral votes.
If a state wants to change how it distributes its votes, it has until Election Day, said David Becker, a CBS News contributor and executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “If a state attempts to change its method of distributing or choosing voters after the election, it will likely create significant constitutional problems,” he said.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham brought this issue into the spotlight in September – less than two months before Election Day – when he met with Nebraska’s governor and state lawmakers to discuss the state’s transition towards a winner-take-all electoral system. The South Carolina senator said it was “very reasonable” for Nebraska to push for a change in the electoral voting system because “the entire destiny of the country and the world could depend on a single electoral vote.”
The state governor, Republican governor. Jim Pillsultimately said he would not call a special session before the November election in what would have been a last-ditch effort by Republicans to implement a winner-takes-all system. That means three of Nebraska’s five electoral votes will go to the winner in each of the state’s three congressional districts, and the remaining two votes will go to the winner of the state’s popular vote.
In 2020 and 2008, one of Nebraska’s electoral votes, in the state’s 2nd Congressional District which includes Omaha, went in favor of the Democratic candidate. In the next election, it’s possible that Mr. Trump and Vice President Harris could be tied in the Electoral College — 269 to 269 — which would make Nebraska’s 2nd District the deciding vote.
Another possibility is that Congress has the ability to increase the number of people serving in the House of Representatives, which would cause the number of voters to be more proportionate to the actual population. The number of members of the House of Representatives has been limited to 435 since 1929. Since then, the population has increased by almost 176% according to census data, meaning larger districts for the same fixed number of representatives.
To completely overhaul the Electoral College, Congress would have to pass a constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. It’s probably the “one surefire way” to change the Electoral College, Becker believes, but the chances of that happening are slim.
“I think such an amendment would be extremely difficult, given that the majority of states actually benefit from the electoral college structure,” he said.
