The National Popular Vote interstate compact would radically change presidential elections and national politics. It would bring chaos, and if upheld by the courts would cause dangerous unintended consequences.
CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. The Constitution says interstate compacts require congressional consent. NPV claims they don’t need it, and the Supreme Court has never enforced it. But no other compact has changed presidential election rules.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS. NPV founder John Koza calls his plan an “end run” around the Constitution. The original intent and purpose of the Electoral College is a state-by-state election. Because NPV violates the basic purpose of the Electoral College, it is probably unconstitutional.
PLURALITY WINNERS. Under NPV any plurality, no matter how small, could win. This would encourage “spoiler” candidates and splinter parties trying to game the system.
REGIONAL POLITICS. The Electoral College requires geographic balance, but NPV would allow regional parties or campaigns to win the presidency.
DISPUTES. Each NPV state would certify its own national vote total. This would rely on officials in each state trusting, without power to verify, the veracity of every other state’s election processes.
RECOUNTS. NPV is incompatible with existing recount laws but includes no provisions for recounts.
STATE UPSETS. A state could be required to appoint Electors for a candidate with few supporters in that state, or even to a candidate who was not on that state’s ballot, under NPV.
STATE DROPOUTS. NPV claims states cannot game the compact by dropping out close to an election, but whether this clause is enforceable, and who would enforce it against a state, is uncertain.