Democrats' midterm gains could sideline Electoral College by 2028

Democrats won complete state-government control, known as a trifecta, in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada. That means Democratic leaders control each state’s governorship and both legislative chambers. The gains matter because states decide how to appoint their presidential electors, giving these governments a possible role in changing presidential elections without amending the Constitution.

The five states could enact the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Together, they could add enough electoral votes to move the agreement from 222 votes to 283. The compact would take effect once participating states control at least 270 electoral votes.

The path is not automatic. The new legislatures must still approve the compact, and it may not become a priority. Michigan previously failed to enact it during a 2023–2024 Democratic trifecta, while Nevada’s governor vetoed it in 2019.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among states about how to award electoral votes. Participating states would promise to give all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, rather than automatically backing their own state’s winner. It matters because it could make the national popular vote decisive in presidential elections.

The agreement does not abolish the Electoral College on paper. Instead, it uses states’ authority over elector appointment. Nearly every state currently awards all its electoral votes to the statewide winner. Under the compact, participating states would use their votes for the nationwide popular-vote winner once the agreement reaches the required threshold.

The compact has been enacted by 18 states and Washington, D.C. Those jurisdictions represent 222 electoral votes. It would activate at 270, and the five new Democratic trifectas could potentially raise the total to 283.

The compact currently represents 222 electoral votes. That total comes from 18 states and Washington, D.C., which have enacted the agreement since it launched in 2006. The compact is designed to activate only when participating states collectively control at least 270 electoral votes.

The 270-vote threshold is central because it matches the number needed to determine the presidency through the Electoral College. Once the threshold is reached, participating states would award their electoral votes to the national popular-vote winner. The agreement would therefore operate through state decisions rather than a constitutional amendment.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada could add enough electoral votes to bring the total to 283. That would exceed the activation threshold by 13 votes. However, the states must still enact the compact, and the article says it is unclear whether their lawmakers will make it a priority.

If the compact takes effect, participating states would award their electoral votes to the national popular-vote winner. This would replace the usual state-based approach in those states, where nearly every state gives all its electoral votes to the statewide winner. The Electoral College would still formally exist.

For example, a candidate could win enough states and electoral votes to become president while receiving fewer votes nationwide. Under the compact, participating states would instead direct their electors toward the candidate who received the most votes across the country. The compact could therefore end that possibility if enough states participate.

The change depends on legislation, not automatic results. The five new Democratic trifecta states still need to enact the agreement. It could also face constitutional challenges, including an argument that Congress must approve it under the Constitution’s Compact Clause.

The Electoral College is the system through which presidential electors’ votes determine the winner every four years. Americans cast ballots for candidates, but those ballots choose the electors connected to those candidates. The electors then provide the votes that determine who becomes president.

Nearly every state awards all its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the statewide vote. Maine and Nebraska use a different method as well: they award some electors based on congressional district results. This means presidential elections are decided through state electoral outcomes, not simply by adding every vote nationwide.

The compact would alter that process in participating states. Once the agreement reached 270 electoral votes, those states would award their electors to the national popular-vote winner. The Electoral College would remain formally in place, but the national vote would guide participating states’ elector choices.

States can change their elector-allocation rules because the Constitution explicitly gives them power to appoint electors in such manner as their legislatures may direct. The article identifies this language as the legal foundation for the compact. A state can therefore decide how its electors will be assigned without changing the Constitution itself.

Today, nearly every state awards all electoral votes to its statewide winner. The compact would use the same state authority differently. After reaching 270 participating electoral votes, member states would award their electors to the national popular-vote winner instead of their own statewide winner.

This route does not guarantee the compact’s legality. The Electoral College would remain formally in place, but opponents could challenge the agreement. Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller argues that congressional approval is required under the Constitution’s Compact Clause, an issue that could reach courts.

The constitutional dispute centers on the Compact Clause. The compact is an agreement among states, and Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller argues that Congress must approve it. His position is that the states cannot put the agreement into effect on their own, even though the Constitution gives state legislatures power over appointing electors.

The disagreement involves two constitutional ideas. One gives states authority to direct how they appoint presidential electors. The other may require congressional approval for certain interstate compacts. If courts accepted Muller’s argument, reaching 270 electoral votes would not by itself be enough to activate the agreement.

The article does not say how a challenge would be resolved. It identifies congressional approval as one possible constitutional obstacle. The five states must first enact the compact, and lawmakers’ next steps will show whether the agreement advances toward the 2028 presidential election.