How the National Popular Vote could change presidential elections

We're back from summer break with a deep dive on the National Popular Vote campaign, an effort to render the Electoral College obsolete when states pledge their electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote.

As of August 2024, National Popular Vote has been enacted by 17 states and the District of Columbia, accounting for 209 of the 270 electoral votes needed to make it a reality nationwide. Guests Patrick Rosenstiel and Alyssa Cass have a plan to get to 270 by the 2028 presidential election.

Rosenstiel is a senior consultant for National Popular Vote and has visited 45 states on behalf of the campaign. As a Republican political field director, he successfully directed grassroots efforts across the West and Midwest to garner Senate support for U.S. Supreme Court candidates John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Cass is a partner at Slingshot Strategies and founded its communications practice. During the 2022 cycle, she spearheaded the communications strategy for two of New York's most competitive, most watched congressional elections, leading media and messaging strategy for Representative Pat Ryan (in both the NY-19 special election and the NY-18 general election) and Carlina Rivera in New York's 10th Congressional District.

After the interview, Chris Beem and Candis Watts Smith discuss whether the National Popular Vote will survive a Supreme Court challenge and how it could change the way elections and campaigns are run.

‍

Chris Beem
From the McCourtney Institute for Democracy on the campus of Penn State University. I'm Chris Beem.

Candis Watts Smith 
I'm Candis Watts Smith.

Jenna Spinelle
I'm Jenna Spinelle. And welcome to Democracy Works. We are back after our summer hiatus. I hope everyone listening had a great summer. There's certainly lots to talk about by me, one of the more eventful summers we've had in political history. But we're going to put a lot of that aside for the time being and talk about the national popular vote, or that's full name, the national popular vote, interstate compact. And this came about. The idea for this came about because one of the things that happened to me this summer was I found myself having conversations with different people in my life about the fact that Pennsylvania is a swing state, and we are inundated with election mail and texts and emails and all of these things from the various candidates and campaigns. Candis, I'm sure it's similar for you in North Carolina. And people would ask me, Why does it have to be this way, or does it have to be this way? And I would say, well, there's this movement out there that's hoping to change it, but I frankly, didn't do a very good job of explaining it. So I reached out to two of the folks who are working on the national popular vote campaign, Pat Rosenstiel, who is a Republican strategist, and Alyssa Cass, who is a Democratic strategist, and invited them on the show to talk about it, and I know I certainly learned a lot. And I think it's interesting to be thinking about a reform like this and how it might change elections when we are in the middle of or the height of an election cycle this fall.

Candis Watts Smith 
So you know, a lot of people, I think that sentiment about, well, why is it this way? Is the underlying question is a question about the quality of our democracy. Why is it that some states get more attention and care than others? And I think generally speaking, I mean, I've kind of put that into the category of issues that people have, and I think even especially before Kamala Harris entered the race as the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, that a lot of young people saw like Biden Trump as that choice, As like not a good choice, and was indicative of our quality of democracy. I think this kind of is one of those things is like, and what about our institutions that, you know, can bolster or constrain the quality of, you know, representation, the Electoral College, I think, is one of those hot button issues. Maybe I don't want to say especially for young people, but people, people give it a side eye, and I think perhaps it's important for us to remember that, you know, several components of the US Constitution arrived out of debates and compromises. There were, you know, debates between big states and small states, slave holding states and states that eventually got rid of slavery. Then there are questions about majority rule and minority rights. And, you know, legislative power and executive power, and who should have the most? And you know, out of those debates, we got a series of compromises. We got a bicameral legislative session system, you know. So we have even representation in the Senate. We have proportional represent, kind of proportional representation in the house. We had, at some point, the three fifths compromise for representation and taxation, and among others, we got electoral college. So you know, some of the push and pull around the electoral college is not that much different from some of the push and pull that we have around a lot of issues, but this one comes to the fore every four years, like a year like this one. And so I think this is a good time to think about why we have the system. Is it possible to change? Is it necessary for change? And what, you know, what are the what? What is the potential, the possibilities and the perils?

Chris Beem
The only thing I would add is, you know, in 1787, to my democracy was a very scary concept, and what came out of the Constitution was a fairly radical document in terms of how much power it gave to people, to the, you know, as a as a democracy. However, there are plenty of ways in. Which the framers worked to bracket or to ameliorate the power of the of the people to directly rule. And a lot of the things that you you talked about, I mean the Senate having not just six year terms. But what's the word I'm looking for, indirectly? Well, every two years you had a third Senate. So even if you had this kind of, you know, rabid movement by the by the populace, to vote all the bums out, they could only vote out a third of the Senate. So that's one thing, and then you had indirect election of the Senate by the state legislatures. So I mean all the power. And then, of course, you had the electoral college too, but all of this power, ultimately was in the hands of the people, right? The people could determine who was in the state legislature, and thereby determine who was in the Senate, but the but the idea was that if you kept that, you made it harder to sustain any kind of crazy notion that got into the into the into the body politic, you could control it, and so you would have less danger associated with democracy. And electoral college is probably, well, first of all, it's one of the few remaining right. We have expanded the franchise. We've got we have direct election of senators, but we still have this really weird thing called the Electoral College, and it was designed to take the power out of the hands of the the people and put it in the hands of this elite group, right in Federalist 68 I did not know that, but I looked it up, since they Hamilton wrote, and Hamilton was by far the most elitist of the founders, the sense of the people should be part of the process, but would be taken as an advisement by the Electoral College. And the electoral college was going to be composed of quote, men most capable of analyzing the qualities needed for the supreme office, educated and discerning gentlemen who would meet under circumstances favorable to deliberation there. I don't think there are any good reasons outside of, you know, partisan advantage to argue for the Electoral College, right? I mean, you could argue for a set of procedures in which the states had, you know, some kind of standing in terms of their votes, but the idea that this is going to electors who are only elected for this decision, and yet they can't. The states can make their they force them to vote for the for the candidate who won their popular vote. It's there's just a step here that A is anti democratic and B was never, has never operated the way it was supposed to. I mean that it was never this, uh, what Hamilton says it was, what Hamilton said it was supposed to be, which is this, you know, separate group of wise white property holding men who are going to make this decision on behalf of the body politic, that has never been the case. 

Candis Watts Smith 
Nevertheless, we have a couple of guests, Pat and Alyssa, who do think that things should be different. And what I appreciate about them especially is that they are different partisans, but in a shared value, I think they have a shared sense of value, about an interpretation about representation, about about democracy, about how to have, you know, political outcomes that are more representative of the people I'm I'm really excited to, you know that we brought them here, and it's, you know, just to kind of talk about, and To spark conversation about, about what could be, and more importantly, that they have a plan that many states are joining on. And so really just kind of considering the idea, I think, is it's just something that we should be doing, is it's the right time to do that? 

Jenna Spinelle
As you'll hear them say in the interview, they already have 18 states signed on, and they have much like candidates have a path to getting 270 electoral votes, they have a path for how they could make the national popular vote a reality before the 2028 election. So without further ado, let's go to the interview with Pat and Alyssa. Alyssa Katz and Pat Rosenthal, welcome to democracy works. Thanks for joining us.

Alyssa Cass
Thanks so much for having us.

Jenna Spinelle
So the two of you are seasoned political strategists who have worked on a number of campaigns and issues. So as a way into this conversation, I'd love to know a little bit about how you came to work on the national popular vote campaign and how it might relate to or intersect with previous work you've done or not, as the case may be. So, um, Alyssa, why don't you kick us off? 

Alyssa Cass
So I'm a democratic political strategist. I've spent my career working for campaigns around the country, and no matter what campaign I'm on, a channel and and I think there's no clear example of this than the than the presidential campaign we're in now, we have a problem in this country where we have where voters feel disenfranchised, and the reason they feel disenfranchised is because they are disenfranchised right now, four out of five American votes simply you don't matter, and that's because If you don't live in a handful of swing states, in a you know, in the three to generously seven swing states, no one's talking to you. So so the reason I came to this issue is because I'm someone who believes in politics, and believes in politics ability to improve law, to improve lives, but, but I need to be joined by by other Americans who feel the same. And I think that there is nothing more we could do, nothing bigger we could do to enhance our democracy, improve our elections, and restore faith in the system. Then, to get to a principle that I think we all that everyone can agree on of one person, one vote, this is a this isn't a pipe dream. It's not a academic wish list. It is something that's imminently achievable. It's been, it's been imminently achievable. So I'm here because I really believe in the issue I care about politics, and there's no better way to improve, to improve our democracy than through a national popular vote. 

Pat Rosenstiel
The president of national popular vote approached me in 2007 as a Republican. I was I was pretty sure that I wasn't going to be liking this idea very much. So I had them send me their one pager in their book, which is about 800 pages, made the mistake of reading the book. Everything I thought they were doing was kind of wrong. You know, I'm a Reagan baby, so trust but verify is a real thing, but that means trust but verify. My own instincts, not trust but verify what you're telling me. So I read the book came out the other side as a what I would consider an original intent guy. I like the fact that they were using the United States Constitution to move the presidential election to a national popular vote for president. I certainly knew that when we were running for president, or when candidates that I supported were running for president or worked with or around, you know, they were polling in just 18 states, which means, you know, two thirds of the voters, we didn't even care what they had to say. And so I was interested in the national popular vote for president, so every voter in every state would be politically relevant in every presidential election as a Republican trap behind the blue wall in Minnesota, you know, look, we're the only state that voted for Walter Mondale. You know, I felt like I should be courted in presidential elections, or at least have an equal voice and them to a battleground state voters, and frankly, I feel the same way about a liberal in Oklahoma City.

Jenna Spinelle
Yeah, that's great. And I want to come back to some of the political ramifications that that both of you mentioned, but let's just walk through some of the nuts and bolts of how this process works. You mentioned 18 States have signed on to this compact so far, I guess first, if you could explain for listeners who might not be familiar with what an interstate compact is, and then those states that have already signed on, what exactly have they agreed to do.

Alyssa Cass
I'm happy to kick it off the national popular vote. Interstate Compact is an agreement. Meant among states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. You know, with the compact, the candidate winning the national popular vote would always be awarded at least the 270 electoral votes necessary to become president. In other words, the compact would ensure that the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes would win the office, just like other elections in our country. And some important things to know about the about the national popular vote Interstate Compact is that it preserves the electoral college. It's fully allowed by the US Constitution without an amendment, making this a really achievable reform, as I said, it ensures a popular vote winner becomes President every time. It injects the fundamental principle of one person, one vote into our presidential elections. It resembles interstate compacts on other issues. This is a structure that's familiar to our system, and it would go into effect when passed by states containing, you know that majority of electoral votes,

Pat Rosenstiel
Yeah, and just to put a fine point on that, the 18 states you asked, what's different for them right now? Nothing's different for them right now, but they're 18 states with 209 electoral votes, right? And so when states with 61 more electoral votes join those states, it then triggers and becomes effective for the presidential election. And to the idea that this isn't a science project, you know what I mean? Anybody who knows anything about election reform, when you can get 18 states to agree on anything must be a pretty good idea and a pretty popular idea. That's true of the national popular vote interstate compact. You know, 67% of the American people want a national popular vote for president. But I would also point out that we've passed in one chamber or the other, a house or the senate in eight states with 78 more electoral votes, more than the electoral votes required. So I can tell you that national popular vote, the interstate compact, is not a Republican or Democrat idea. It's not a partisan issue. Frankly, it's for anybody who believes that every voter in every state should be politically relevant. And I think it's for any voter who thinks we can have a better politics in this country, if the principle of one person, one vote applies to presidential elections, last thing I'll say about interstate compacts. Every state's in dozens of these things. These aren't experiments. I think the one that most people know the most about is Powerball. Right? That's an interstate compact where people go buy a lottery ticket. The states get the resources, but what holds that all together is called an interstate compact. So what those are is contracts amongst the states, or agreements amongst the states, and they're absolutely enforceable. They're older than the Republic, and they're not exotic things in American government.

Jenna Spinelle
Alyssa, you mentioned that the national popular vote maintains the Electoral College. I wonder if, if one of you could speak a little bit more to that, like, Why? Why keep it around? Is this just a more convenient way to go, as opposed to trying to do I don't know if it would be a constitutional amendment or, you know, whatever the the procedure would be to eliminate the Electoral College.

Pat Rosenstiel
I'll take this first, which is, it's not a matter of convenience. I mean, anybody who thinks this reforms convenient should follow me around in my shoes for a day. You know, the bottom line is, it takes time to change, and should take time to change. The reason the interstate compacts the way to go is because it's allowed under the United States Constitution. Any of your political science listeners you know can open up their pocket copy of the Constitution and read article two, section one, it says each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors. Okay, so different states have used different methods to award their electors right. Maine and Nebraska do it by congressional district when they change their statute. Didn't require a constitutional amendment. So what we do is we use the power as it exists within the constitution to have a national popular vote election, which is what people want. There's no reason to amend the Constitution if the power exists to do it within the Constitution. And you know, the bottom line is, we don't change a city charter to fill a pothole, right? The city has the power to fill a pothole, so let's just use what's in the system. Now, I will say, you know, anybody who's like, Oh, I'm for a national popular vote for president, but think we should have a constitutional amendment. They're part of the problem. You know what I mean? Because we need a national popular vote for president. There's one way we're going to get one. There's one way that's been vetted, you know, by 18 states and has. Bipartisan support that way, is the plan at national popular vote.com so if you do want a presidential election system where every voter in every state is relevant, where the candidate with the most votes is guaranteed the presidency, get on board, because this is the way it's going to get done.

Jenna Spinelle
Yeah, I'm sticking with you for a minute here. Pat, how are you thinking about, how is this campaign thinking about the idea that the compact, if and when it comes to fruition, might be challenged in court or wind up on the Supreme Court to you know, on their docket to weigh in on. Is that something that, I guess one could happen given this structure that you just described about this being permitted in the Constitution and if it could find its way to the Supreme Court, how are you preparing for what that might look like? You know, I know that in politics, you have to look at what's right in front of you, but also what's coming two or three steps down the road,

Pat Rosenstiel
I will tell you, there will be a lawsuit. This is America, so there will be a lawsuit. We will win it. We will want to win it in perhaps summary judgment, certainly the idea that states have the power to award electors, that is the most settled sort of that's the most settled piece of constitutional law. And I would say a conservative court is more likely, way more likely, to uphold that than even the most liberal court, right because it says what it says. That's what strict constructionism is all about. So article two, section one, I think the court case will center around whether or not the national popular vote interstate compact requires congressional consent. Around article one section 10. If they determine we need consent, we'll go to Congress and we'll get it. If they determine we don't need consent, which only interstate compacts that encroach on federal supremacy require congressional consent. If they determine we don't, it'll take effect. And so that's where I think the crux of the lawsuit will be. I promise you, we'll be fully prepared to fight it, and we will certainly win it. And whatever the Court tells us to do, we're going to go do, because we need a national popular vote for president.

Jenna Spinelle
Yeah, let's, let's come back to you, Alyssa, can you talk a little bit about how a national popular vote would change the way that presidential campaigns are run? We've talked a little bit about, you know, the real the focus on swing states. I'm here in Pennsylvania. I certainly know that to be the case. But how, how would this change the playbook for presidential candidates and campaigns in terms of how they allocate resources, how they're covered in the media, those kinds of things.

Alyssa Cass
So I think a really exciting thing about a national popular vote, right, is that it would force, you know, and again, this is a bit speculative, but if it was me running a presidential campaign with a national popular vote, I would be, I would be orienting the campaign around the issues that that the top issues for voters across the country, rather than niche, you know, sort of narrower or niche issues that cater to swing voters in three to four swing states. You know, we look at, look at this election, we spend a lot of time talking about the issues that Americans that we spend a lot of time talking about issues other than the ones that Americans say are most important to them, and it also, and, you know, look, no matter where you are in the country, you know, in this in this cycle, voters are saying the cost of living, prices, inflation is top of mind. Will be really exciting to have candidates be talking to voters about about that issue across the country, coming up with real solutions, and then being elected with a mandate across the country. It's also, you know, beyond how it would change how campaigns are run, it would give you know, I think elected presidents a real mandate to govern. They would be campaigning on issues, governing on those issues, and versus and that will be their top priority. If you weren't doing things that were broadly popular, broadly Top of Mind voters, you wouldn't get elected. I think it improves our discourse and makes and returns it to a more substantive election.

Pat Rosenstiel
Yeah, I think two exciting and principal changes that will occur for sure, and then I'll answer the question on the media, because it's an interesting question. Two things principally that will happen is that campaigns will be polling in all 50 states, right because now how much you win or lose a state becomes important. Right now we ignore any state where the outcome. Is predetermined based on polling right. So I think that's important that every American voter will be heard by the campaigns and the candidates who run. I also think you'll see a reinvigoration of grassroots politics in all 50 states, unlike we have seen in a very long time. And the reason that is is because political muscle on the ground, right is what turns out votes in states. And you will not be able to ignore any state, let alone Alaska and Hawaii, for example. What's right now? I mean, the elections are often called before their polls even close, you know what I mean. So it's going to be reinvigorating to the grassroots politics movement. I don't know that that's I think that's good for American political parties, and I mean all American political parties, because the candidates who are most organized, driving out the most voters, are going to win the most votes on the media side of things. You know, media is an important part of politics. I mean, if you're interested in sort of dispersing spend, for example, in presidential elections right right now they spend more money in the they used to spend more money in the battleground state of Florida than 42 other states combined. Florida's got a little different status now, and that's a message to the voters in Pennsylvania, yeah, maybe you're a battleground state now, but you have been ignored before and will be ignored again, you know what I mean. But if you're worried about the concentration of resources in battleground states, which I think is something to be reasonably concerned about, the solution to pollution is dilution, right? So now every presidential campaign is going to be in every political market, right? And they're going to be fighting for the hearts and minds of every voter in every precinct in this country, because it matters. That's what happens in gubernatorial elections in Pennsylvania, right? They don't just hunker down in Philly and Pittsburgh. That t you know, becomes important to the calculus of how you're going to win a governor's race. Well, that's because it's a first pass the post system, where the candidate with most votes wins, I will say on the editorial side, that's what a lot of journalists find really interesting about a national popular vote. Missouri is not in the compact, but we had a hearing where one of the key people who testified in support was sort of the Missouri news Association, right? Whatever it was, because they were like, look, we're totally ignored in presidential elections. If they come here, we'll have editorial content to sort of cover and keep our readers or our listeners or our viewers informed. From a local perspective, all that stuff becomes really important in a national popular vote for president under the current system Missouri, it's crickets. You know what? I mean? That's what you're covering.

Jenna Spinelle
So as as the two of you are out making the case for this across the country, who are the most difficult people to convince, or who are the people that are kind of pushing back the hardest against this? Is it state legislators? Is it donors? Is it, you know, the political strategist, consultants world like, where are you seeing, seeing opposition. 

Alyssa Cass
I would say that, you know that as a, as a, as a Democrat, working in democratic politics, talking to lots of Democrats, I would say that the biggest, you know, enemy I come against IS is actually just sort of apathy, or often Democrats chasing shiny objects, right? This is a reform that has been slow, has real momentum, but that momentum has been slow and steady, and we Democrats sometimes like to spend, you know, two or three weeks talking about, you know, a gut, you know, some someone, someone using the word weird. But I think that Democrat so, I think for Democrats, so for me, the challenge is focusing Democrats on how important this issue is and how achievable this reform is. And what I say is we Democrats have have made protecting and defending democracy a core component of our platform and message. You know, we at and and they'll and they'll, even though Democrats have spent years making the case that our democracy is in peril and that we're the party working to protect it, they voters don't often see our urgency or believe us when we say it. And in my view, if Democrats want voters outside of our base to believe that we're committed to defending democracy and be motivated by that issue, we have to expand our case and the options we're offering beyond the threats that are posed by Trump and Republicans. Our answer to improving and enhancing our democracy can't only be defeating Donald Trump, the Democratic ecosystem should mobilize around clear, actionable efforts that demonstrate to Americans that were really invested in this, and there's no better way to do that, or more achievable way to do that, with national popular vote. So for me, the biggest challenge is keeping democratic and food. Asia and trying to keep Democrats focused on this, this, this reform that's achievable, rather than chasing shiny objects and news cycles.

Jenna Spinelle
I have two more questions for you to bring things to a close here. So you know, as as we've been talking, I've been thinking about the work that's being done to open primaries or to reduce gerrymandering. Move to, you know, citizen focused map drawing processes, the efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics. I guess, do you see national and popular vote as as part of this bigger political reform movement? Or is it something that's perhaps separate, because it is so singularly focused on the presidential election, 

Pat Rosenstiel
 I'll go first, which is, look, I'm a one trick pony. You know what I mean? If you want to do the most good for the most people, and you're interested in the election reform that will fulfill the promise and advance the future of American democracy, you know what I mean, the national popular vote movement is the place to do the most good overnight. All those other ideas have merits. All of them address problems. Probably, you know what I mean? I don't know enough to know, right, all of that stuff. But in the end, if I mean, what's more foundational to American democracy is it? Is it the idea that one person, one vote, will govern the system we use to elect the leader of our nation, right? Or is it different voting systems in different places? You know what I mean, and I think reasonable people can have different priorities. I can tell you, I am unashamed of my priority. I believe it is the one that will do the most good. It is the one that will do the most good overnight, and it is the one that's most achievable to serve the most voters in this country and to serve the system. And frankly, our politics is broken. It's getting dangerous out there. It is dangerous out there. You know what I mean? This will remove more toxicity from American politics than any single reform in my lifetime.

Alyssa Cass
You know? I think that I feel, I feel the same way as Pat. There are lots of what like. There are the there are lots of parts of our politics and our elections that are deeply broken, but if you're looking towards something that has already had, has huge sign on, huge bipartisan support, and again, going back to the to the to the Pew study we referenced, has the support of two thirds of voters, that's that's a reform to get behind when you see those 60% issues, those are, that's a bandwagon to hop on.

Jenna Spinelle
One last thing. So you mentioned Michigan earlier, and there are other states where this has passed in one chamber but not the other. So what? What's next for you and for this movement? Which states are you focusing on next? To the extent that you are focusing on specific states, where do you where do you see kind of the next wins coming from? 

Pat Rosenstiel
I can promise you, we don't have a path. We don't have the path to 270, right the national popular vote. Interstate Compact is introduced in all the states. It has not yet been adopted. There are various states at various phases of development, you know. And Michigan is one that currently is in a legislative session, you know. The question is, is it going to be scheduled before they adjourn? You're right. That's, that's the question. And stay tuned. I don't make any predictions. That's a fool's errand, you know. But I would say that the national popular vote, Interstate Compact is, I'm beyond hopefully optimistic, like I am, like, increasingly confident. I think, is the phrase I would use that the national popular vote interstate compact can, should and will right be in place for the 2028, presidential election, because we don't need to do this anymore. You know what I mean. We don't need to do 2024, 2020 or 2016 we can have it. So I would just look at the eight states where we've passed one chamber or the other. 78 electoral votes. Some of them don't appear on there. I know Pennsylvania, we have bipartisan support, right? We've always had bipartisan support. Bills have been introduced there. We'll have bipartisan support there again. And I think the national popular vote interstate compact takes effect when Pennsylvania passes the bill. You know, in the end, Pennsylvania belongs in this compact, because nobody's probably, well, I shouldn't say that everybody's invested a lot in American democracy, but I've been to your capital. I know you're veterans. Pennsylvania has made unique contributions to the advancement of the American experiment in preserving American democracy. National popular vote can be a. Their next contribution, I hope it will be and should be,

Jenna Spinelle
Pat and Alyssa. Thank you so much for taking the time to be with us today.

Pat Rosenstiel
Thanks for having us in your interest. Appreciate it.

Candis Watts Smith 
Thank you, Jenna, Pat and Alyssa, for that really wonderful interview. One thing I have to say is that as a university administrator, I get a lot of people that will tell me why something can't be done. And so to listen to two people who are focused and on a mission and on message about all the reasons why something could and should be done, really is a breath of fresh air. And I just thought it was really helpful to hear the ideas, the ideas that undergird this system, and the importance I think, that undergird that system, to try to wield and leverage the existing institutions and rules and loopholes that we have to create a system that would get us closer to seeing the popular votes, will and desire be moved into the White House. 

Chris Beem
No, I agree. I was really, you know, these two people are lobbyists, and they're very good at it, and the people they have to convince are politicians who have who are most concerned about keeping their seats and who are most worried about how any change is going to affect that, right? And so they have answers for just about every objection that you can come up with. But I do, I do think there are challenges to this idea, and some of them are, well, most of them are practical, you know. And let me just preface all my you know, practical, you know, issues with the fact that I think this is incredibly creative, right to come up with this idea, which, as they note, is usually used for, you know, issues around commerce. And the the issue, or the example that they point to, is Powerball, as you know, well, there's this multi state compact around whoever wins gets all the money, right, and and everybody's fine with that, right? And so they are applying this strategy to a much more from a constitutional point of view, much more important set of issues, and really from a democratic point of view too, right? 

Candis Watts Smith 
What practical issues do you see?

Chris Beem
Well, one is that the you know, such a, you know, dramatic change in how we elect a president would be subject automatically right to Supreme Court review, you know, because it would be an argument against states, between states and you know, I think the the prospects for the Supreme Court ruling in a way that was driven by partisan by questions about partisan advantage is not irrelevant. And so I guess I should have said this first, the biggest issue is that the Republicans have secured the White House twice out of the last, I don't know how many elections and that It's only once in the since 2000 that they have won both the electoral vote and the popular vote. So George W Bush was reelected when he did not or No, excuse me. 2004 was the election he won outright. 2000 is the election where he won the electoral vote but didn't win the popular vote. And of course, the same thing happened in 2016 with Donald Trump. So obviously Republicans are going to be a lot more askance at this idea than Democrats, right? And and so

Candis Watts Smith 
Hold on, okay? And maybe it doesn't make it you can tell me if this is a difference without distinction. I think it is, is that there are, um, a Republican politicians who wouldn't want this, and then there are Republican citizens who, polls show they do want this, right. So I. I think, I mean just to be really clear that if we were going to ask people about what they thought about this, the people are kind of like, let's figure out something different. So I just want to just be clear about even among partisans, that elites, as we've seen before, tend to have a different orientation. They have a different incentive structure. Of course, unless your incentives are like democracy, you know, then we have similar, you know, intentions, but you know, anyway. So just to say that we do see it, we probably, I could predict that Republican elites would feel differently, and we know that Republicans, Republican voters have a different sense around this question.

Chris Beem
Sure, but, but? But the change that that Alyssa and Pat are looking for has to come through the legislature and be signed by the governor, or at least, you know, I think in new hair not signed by the governor. She didn't sign it, but it became, that's my only point. And I don't think you know, I would be curious to know if Republican or any, any legislature, legislator, for that matter, feels any popular pressure. But I kind of, I'm skeptical of that.

Candis Watts Smith 
Not yet.

Chris Beem
Now, maybe not yet. I mean, you know it's going to get to a point. I mean, the closer they get, the less abstract this question is, and the more you know, more press is going to get, and the more pressure is going to be on the remaining states to achieve it, right? The other thing that I do that does give me pause is the the idea that in a close election where the popular vote is less than a million, which doesn't happen very often. I don't even know

Candis Watts Smith 
It's only happened once in the many recent past, and by many recent, I mean, like since the 60s. 

Chris Beem
Actually, that's right, the 60s was very close and then. But you know, all right, let's just say, I mean, in 20 in 2000 the election came down to like three counties in in was like Miami, Dade, Palm Beach and Broward. I think that's right, and which just shows how freaking old I was, I AM, and how attuned I was to that debate 24 years ago. But anyway, it was down to, you know, precincts, and down to recounting and butterfly ballots and all this. It was dramatic, and the stakes were incredibly high, and if you were to go to a popular vote, and it was close, then I do think you would have, you know, the the issues and the attention associated with Those three counties in in Florida could come down to legal challenges all over the state, all over the nation, and you would have this kind of gridlock that could really bring the process to its knees. I don't know that that would happen, but I don't see it as out of the question that that would happen.

Candis Watts Smith 
I mean, okay, Florida that, I mean, that was in this particular situation, right? That was in the like that was in the system that we have now, right, right? And so it mattered very much about those three counties, because we Florida gives all of its electors to one over the other, but Gore had a half 538,000 more votes across the country, and since then, the vote total difference hasn't been less than 2.8 million since then.

Chris Beem
Candis was loaded for this one.

Candis Watts Smith 
Joe Biden was ahead by 7 million votes, and we also know that if, like, 75,000 of them change, we'd have a different president. That is ridiculous, right? So, I mean, you know, we have to kind of dis, you know, take apart the variables here that, yes, the Florida situation in which the Supreme Court refuses to talk about, right, right, yeah, right.

Chris Beem
It was a scandalous decision.

Candis Watts Smith 
I think that a move forward. Is also about a conversation change and a change in discourse and a change in expectations, the extent to which your vote actually matters, wherever you are, if you're if you're a red you know, if you're a Republican in a democratic state, if you're a Democrat and a Republican state, you know all of these things that I think one of the reasons why people might see have a sense of inevitability is because the feasibility issue arises, not because it's, you know, it's not a good idea, or that It's even possible, but because people who have a disproportionately high amount of power aren't going to want to give away the system that they already have, and people are going to see how that, you know, curves their own vote, right? The power of their own vote and what they want.

Chris Beem
Yeah, I mean, I think that's, I think that's all, all right, I think there's, there's some, there's an argument there, and let's hope that it's ultimately persuasive. Anyway it's, it's always fun to to disagree with Candace and and I think this is a really, you know, obviously, this is a really important and timely issue. And thanks to pat and Alyssa for coming on for the McCourtney Institute for Democracy. I'm Chris Beem.

Candis Watts Smith 
And I'm Candis  Watts Smith. Thank you for listening.

‍