There are a lot of questions about its constitutionality, though. The Wikipedia page is quite good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the_Natio...
Choosing electors based on another state's vote however is not representative.
The history of the Electoral College seems very much at odds with that notion. Indeed, the current state of the Electoral College is at odds with it, since the states mostly switched to winner-take-all apportionment about 100 years ago, and now we regularly get outcomes where the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the Electoral College.
Here's another way to think about it. Is it legal for the American president to be chosen by worldwide vote? As far as the states are concerned, other states are a foreign sovereignty
> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Moreover, the constitution doesn't even tell the electors how to vote!
> The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President...
The question of faithless electors has been delegated to state law as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
> The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
I personally interpret that to mean that the feds will intervene should a state not provide a representative form of government.
The Supreme Court kinda agrees. It's not a common clause that's ruled on, but in 1874, they did rule on it:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-3/AL...']
> the Court stated that the Guarantee Clause leaves room for states to structure their governments in various ways yet remain republican.
Which I take to mean that the Court will intervene should a state do something that is clearly not republican.
> It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it...
From this exerpt, it would seem that a popular vote compact would be more consistent with this definition than the status quo which concentrates voting power into rural populations.
My main concern with the NPVIC is that legislatures might change their mind between election day and elector day if their electors go to the minority party in their state.
A wrestling contest between state legislators would be a perfectly legal way to choose electoral votes. Winner of a foreign vote would not be.
Your version would probably work just fine. They might find a different one. It doesn't really matter.
Umm, sorry, but if Faithless Electors are constitutional, then so is this.
The Constitution doesn't regulate the choice the electors make.
The electors can go by another state's voters, the phase of the moon, or what their pet frog is saying, as far as the Constitution is concerned.
This country was not built as a democracy.
> The electors can go by another state's voters, the phase of the moon, or what their pet frog is saying, as far as the Constitution is concerned.
Sure, but not as far as the law is concerned and the moment the states mandate an elector vote in accordance with a national interstate compact is the moment there's a constitutional issue, because the federal government guarantees to all citizens of states a representative form of government, which means their vote needs to choose a representative that represents them, not citizens of a foreign state.
> This country was not built as a democracy.
That's right, which is why we have representatives elect the president.
In some states, by the laws of those states, which is absolutely irrelevant when we're discussing the legality of the National Popular Vote compact (which is, obviously, kosher on the level of states that opted into it).
>which means their vote needs to choose a representative that represents them, not citizens of a foreign state.
By that logic, the Electoral College itself is unconstitutional.
Or any election. "I didn't vote for X, so X doesn't represent me".
Your interpretation of the word "represent" is not aligned with any real-world elections (including elections in the US).
Also, let me remind you that the Congress exists, and provides two other ways that the states are represented.
>which means their vote needs to choose a representative that represents them, not citizens of a foreign state.
The electors in the electoral college represent citizens that voted for them.
Whoever is decided to be the president by them is assumed to represent the people because it was a choice made by elected representatives.
They can all, collectively, decide to appoint the person that Russia thinks is the best choice, and it will be constitutional.
> which is why we have representatives elect the president.
Which is why there isn't a problem in any criteria those representatives use to elect the president - including the National Vote.
The problem is that what you think representation means and what the constitution codifies are two different things - which is exactly the problem that the National Vote is trying to address.
How so... the electors from each state are chosen only by voters from that state using whatever selection mechanism (based on votes) that the legislature came up with.
> Or any election. "I didn't vote for X, so X doesn't represent me".
In what way have I said this. It's not about whether you individually voted for X. You can be outvoted by your fellow citizens. However, it must be fellow citizens of your state. When it comes to elections and politics, each state is separate. States cannot allow non-state-citizen voters a say in state policies. That's what it means to be a sovereign independent state which the constitution says the states are.
> Also, let me remind you that the Congress exists, and provides two other ways that the states are represented.
Congress has nothing to do with electors.
> The electors in the electoral college represent citizens that voted for them.
That's right. The citizens of the state who they represent. Thus the electors of Oregon represent Oregon voters only. If the electors from Oregon are chosen by national popular vote, then they are inherently representing non-Oregon-citizens, which is illegal, because now oregon citizens have lost representation.
> Which is why there isn't a problem in any criteria those representatives use to elect the president - including the National Vote.
There are major problems with it. It's the same as if the state their governor will be chosen by national vote. Illegal. The government of a state must represent solely those state's citizens, not the citizens of a foreign state.
The electors aren't chosen by the National Popular Vote.
They are chosen by the citizens of the state.
Then these electors go and vote for the winner of National Popular Vote at the convention, according to the wishes of the people that elected them.
You seem to somehow ignore the fact that electors are actual people, and say that something is illegal without a basis.
Right now they're not, but if this compact were to be in force they would.
OK, looks like I was incorrect on that: according to the current plan, they indeed would be[1].
However, that choice is still up to the state. The state may send a pool of any people as electors and require them by law to vote a certain way - under the same principle that outlaws faithless electors in some states.
In the end, whatever choice the elected government of a state makes is the choice of the people. The constitution[2] specifically says that:
>Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Constitution specifically leaves this choice to the Legislature, not to the people of the state.
The Supreme Court has reasoned that the word appoint in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, confers on state legislatures the broadest power of determination[3], so your argument that NPV yields a government that isn't "representative" doesn't hold any water, and has specifically been refuted by the Supreme Court already.
In particular, the legislature specifically has the right to choose the electors.
Input of people other than the state legislature is not required by the Constitution.
[1] https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.10
[2] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/
[3] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-3...
In my opinion the only thing that ought to change is we ought to elect the elector directly. That would make it easier for them to make proper deals and compromises.