Democrats in Key States Weigh Joining National Popular Vote Compact
Left 33%
Center 0%
Right 67%
1 left · 0 center · 2 right
What happened
After Democrats won unified control of state governments in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in the November elections, debate intensified over whether those states should join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), under which member states pledge their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote once the compact covers at least 270 electoral votes. Vox reports that states totaling 222 electoral votes have already joined the compact, meaning that a combination including Pennsylvania, Michigan, and some mix of Arizona, Nevada, and Wisconsin could push it over the 270‑vote threshold and effectively replace the current Electoral College mechanism by 2028 without a constitutional amendment. In an interview cited by the Daily Wire, incoming Wisconsin Democratic Governor David Crowley called the Electoral College "outdated," said "we can do away with it," and signaled interest in discussions with the new Democratic‑controlled Wisconsin Legislature about changing how the state allocates its electors, potentially by joining the NPVIC. Republican officials in Wisconsin, including Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August and former Governor Scott Walker, publicly criticized Crowley’s stance, arguing that eliminating or bypassing the Electoral College would diminish the influence of Wisconsin and other smaller or less populous states in presidential elections.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles
1 of 1 article cites a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 1
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: David Crowley and Josh Shapiro
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 1
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 1
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 1
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Nov 11, 11:16 UTC by Daily Wire, naming its source.
- Not counted 2
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
The biggest gap is that right-leaning coverage omits that one of the National Popular Vote plan’s key intellectual fathers, Akhil Reed Amar, now warns the current compact design is dangerously "glitchy" and could produce "constitutional chaos." Left-leaning coverage shows that this is not a simple partisan clash but a live debate among reform advocates themselves over recounts, differing state rules, and lack of red-state participation; a reader on the right never sees that internal skepticism or the technical governance concerns behind it.
A secondary pattern is language choice. Left-leaning coverage calls the Electoral College "profoundly unfair" and "historically tainted," while right-leaning coverage describes Democrats as trying to "fundamentally change" the system, "do away with" the Electoral College, and "nullify" its design. Both sides pick words that signal threat and gravity, but from opposite normative starting points.
The unasked question is how, in practice, a close national popular vote would be counted and recounted across 50 different state systems if the compact ever actually tipped a presidential election.
Bottom line
Vox reports that states in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact already control 222 electoral votes and could cross 270 with help from new blue states like Wisconsin, while the Daily Wire never notes that the compact’s own co‑designer, Akhil Reed Amar, now warns this near‑victory could trigger exactly the kind of "constitutional chaos" both parties claim to fear.
The receipts — 3 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Akhil Reed Amar, an early architect of the national popular vote compact idea, now calls the existing National Popular Vote Interstate Compact "very glitchy" and warns it could create "constitutional chaos."
- Amar specifically warns that without red-state participation, states outside the compact could refuse to fund or cooperate with a national recount in a close election, undermining the very idea of a reliable national popular vote tally.
- Wisconsin Republican leaders, including Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August and former Governor Scott Walker, argue that a national popular vote would "undermine" the constitutional balance and reduce Wisconsin’s influence as candidates focus on larger population centers.
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage presents the current moment as the culmination of a two‑decade effort to move the United States toward electing presidents by a national popular vote rather than the existing Electoral College system. It emphasizes that the Electoral College has "pro‑slavery origins" and is seen by many Democrats as "profoundly unfair," especially after elections in which Republican candidates became president while losing the national popular vote. Vox explains in detail how the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact works, stressing that it operates entirely within states’ existing constitutional power to decide how to allocate their electors and could reach 270 electoral votes now that Democrats hold new swing‑state trifectas. At the same time, it gives substantial space to Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, an early intellectual architect of the idea, who now warns that the NPVIC in its current form is "glitchy" and could create "constitutional chaos." Amar’s concerns include the lack of buy‑in from Republican‑leaning states, the absence of a trusted national body to certify and recount a national popular vote, and wide variations in state voting rules that could undermine a truly equal "one person, one vote" standard. He suggests that, unless those design flaws are addressed through more uniform rules and credible bipartisan oversight, replacing a familiar if imperfect Electoral College with an untested compact could be riskier than many reform advocates assume.
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage frames incoming Wisconsin Governor David Crowley’s comments as part of a broader Democratic effort to "fundamentally change the American electoral system" by effectively scrapping the Electoral College. The Daily Wire highlights Crowley’s statement that "we can do away with" the Electoral College and stresses that Democrats now control the Wisconsin governorship, Assembly, and Senate for the first time since 2010, giving them practical power to alter how the state’s electors are awarded. It describes the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a scheme to "nullify" the Electoral College’s design by pledging state electors to the national popular vote winner and notes that compact states currently account for 222 electoral votes, still short of the 270 required. The article underscores partisan stakes, pointing out that without the Electoral College, Wisconsin’s 2016 votes would have benefited Hillary Clinton despite Donald Trump’s narrow statewide win, and that Trump later won the national popular vote in 2024. Republican critics quoted in the piece argue that the Constitution intentionally gives states a voice in choosing the president, and they warn that a national popular vote would reduce the political influence of states like Wisconsin while shifting candidates’ attention toward large, heavily urban states such as California and New York.
Our Take (balanced)
The reform side’s strongest claim, reflected in left-leaning coverage, is that a national popular vote better matches the democratic principle that the candidate with the most votes should win and would remove a system with origins tied to slavery and repeated "inversions" where the popular vote loser wins the presidency. Supporters also argue that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact uses powers the Constitution already grants to states over elector allocation, making it a legally plausible route to change without the formidable hurdle of a formal amendment. The right’s most substantial argument is that the Electoral College is a core feature of American federalism that amplifies the voice of smaller and mid‑sized states, and that shifting effectively to a national popular vote through an interstate compact could sideline places like Wisconsin in favor of the largest urban centers. Critics further contend that transforming the presidency’s selection rules outside the Article V amendment process risks both constitutional challenge and a loss of perceived legitimacy, especially if the change is driven almost entirely by one party. The unresolved tension is whether the priority should be maximizing one‑person‑one‑vote national majority rule or preserving a state‑weighted system embedded in the constitutional structure, and whether a partisan‑skewed interstate compact is a stable and accepted way to make such a foundational change.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.