Map shows where effort to replace Electoral College stands
For nearly two decades, there's been an effort to change the way the U.S. has always elected its presidents by creating a workaround to the Electoral College, the indirect popular election process that's been used in every American presidential election in history. A collection of states is now a little closer than it was four years ago to choosing a president by popular vote, after Maine signed legislation in April to join the effort.
Under the nonpartisan National Popular Vote Compact, the most prominent of the Electoral College reform proposals, states would agree to give their electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote — even if it doesn't match the outcome in their state. For instance, if a presidential candidate were to lose Colorado — one of the 17 states that have signed the compact — but win the national popular vote, Colorado's electors would vote for that candidate.
A majority of Americans would prefer to elect the president by popular vote, rather than the Electoral College, Pew Research Center has found. That preference tends to be more pronounced when a president wins the popular vote but not the Electoral College, which has happened just five times — but twice since 2000. Former President Donald Trump was the last president to do so, winning about 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in 2016, though he won the Electoral College by a sizable margin, 304 to 227.
In the Electoral College system, there are a total of 538 electoral votes, divided among the states in a way that mirrors each state's congressional delegation, with one vote allocated for each member of the House, plus two more for the two senators. Most states have a winner-take-all system, which means that all of the state's electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. (Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions, awarding electoral votes individually by congressional district, with two votes going to the statewide winner.)
The electoral vote system is enshrined in the Constitution, and changing the law would require a constitutional amendment, a hurdle that's been too high to surmount.
The National Popular Vote Compact would not go into effect until the states that have signed on reach 270 electoral votes, the magic number that's the 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 to date and where we're at, 2024 could really be the last election where a president is not selected by a national popular vote," she told CBS News.
Here's a map showing the states that have signed the National Popular vote compact:
Getting to 270
Since 2006, the National Popular Vote law has been enacted by 17 states and Washington, D.C. — these are the states that have so far agreed to the compact:
- 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, D.C.: 3 votes
Collectively, these states represent 209 electoral votes, still 61 shy of 270.
None of the states currently signed on are Republican-dominant states. National Popular Vote is courting the battleground state of Michigan, which would bring them 15 electoral votes closer. The bill is currently under consideration in the state legislature and could be voted on this session, Cass told CBS News. National Popular Vote is hopeful it will pass, especially since it has the backing of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
While the bill has been favored by Democratic-leaning states, Cass said that in almost every state where it's passed, it's passed with a Republican co-sponsor or some Republican support.
"This is for people who think that the current system doesn't work, and that is Republicans and Democrats," she said.
If Michigan does join the compact, Cass predicted a domino effect that would prompt other battleground states, like Arizona and North Carolina, to follow suit. Both have passed the National Popular Vote bill in at least one chamber. Cass and her team are also eyeing Nevada — where the bill passed both chambers — and Virginia.
Arguing over a national popular vote
As National Popular Vote sees it, the Electoral College disadvantages people who live in states that are overwhelmingly red or blue: Republicans in New York, or Democrats in Texas, for example. They contend more voters will turn out and vote if they believe their vote carries more weight. A national popular vote would also put voters in less competitive states on par with battleground states by giving them a greater stake in determining the outcome, they argue.
"There's no better way to sort of invigorate faith in our democracy then returning to a principle of one person, one vote," said Cass. She is confident they will get the National Popular Vote over the finish line after the November election.
Democrats have a history of advocating against the Electoral College, which they say gives disproportionate power to smaller, redder states. (All 50 states get two senators, regardless of population size, which tips the scale a bit.) Republicans tend to oppose changing the Electoral College because they fear that the outcome will tip the other way, that voters in large blue states — like California or New York — would have more influence if the presidency were determined by popular vote.
On the flip side, large, red states like Texas would also garner more voting power.
Since 2000, two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, have won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College, spoiling their bids for the White House.
In the current system, the outcome of the election usually boils down to the electoral votes in a handful of battleground states.
Arguments for keeping Electoral College
The Electoral College gives more weight to smaller, more Republican-dominant states. If elections were decided by the popular vote, Democrats would have a slight structural advantage. In 2024, according to the Pew Research Center, 49% of registered voters are Democrats or lean Democratic, while 48% are Republicans or lean Republican. Republicans fear that voters in large blue states like California or New York would have more influence if the presidency were determined by popular vote.
So if it's the case now that candidates spend all their general election time in states in the middle of the country — the battlegrounds of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, for example — dropping the Electoral College would likely result in the urban, population-rich states on the coasts — California and New York — getting more attention. Large, red-leaning states like Florida and Texas would also become ever more important.
Other ways to change Electoral College
One option that's also on the table is for individual states to change the way they apportion their votes. Most states have a winner-takes-all setup where the person who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of 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 the way it allocates its votes, it has until Election Day, said David Becker, CBS News contributor and the executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. "If a state tries to change its method for allocating or choosing electors after the election, it will likely create significant constitutional issues," he said.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham brought this issue into the spotlight in September — with less than two months until Election Day — when he met with Nebraska's governor and state lawmakers to discuss moving the state to a winner-take-all electoral system. The South Carolina senator said it was "very reasonable" for Nebraska to push for a change to the electoral vote system because "the whole fate of the country and the world could hinge on one electoral vote."
The state's governor, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen, ultimately said he wouldn't call a special session before the November election in what would have been a last-ditch effort by the Republicans to implement a winner-take-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 two remaining votes will go to the winner of the state's popular vote.
In both 2020 and 2008, one of Nebraska's electoral votes, in the state's 2nd Congressional District that includes Omaha, went to the Democratic candidate. In the upcoming election, it's possible Mr. Trump and Vice President Harris could tie in the Electoral College — 269 to 269 — which would make Nebraska's 2nd District the deciding vote.
Another possibility lies with Congress, which has the ability to expand the number of people in the House of Representatives, bringing the number of electors more in proportion to the actual population. The House of Representatives has remained capped at 435 since 1929. Since then, the population has increased nearly 176% according to census data, meaning bigger congressional districts for the same fixed number of representatives.
To overhaul the Electoral College completely, Congress would have to pass a constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. This is likely "the only foolproof" way to change the Electoral College, says Becker, but the chances of it happening are slim.
"I think an amendment like that would be extremely difficult, given that the majority of the states actually benefit from the structure of the Electoral College," he said.