The 2026 midterms were a major setback for Republicans at nearly every level of government. One consequence of the Democrats’ gains may be getting less attention: they could bring the National Popular Vote Compact within reach, potentially changing how the country chooses its president.
The compact is an agreement among states to award their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, even if that candidate loses in the state. It takes effect only when participating states together hold at least 270 electoral votes, enough to determine the winner.
The proposal is also sharply partisan: Democrats generally favor it, while Republicans oppose it. Before Election Day on November 4, states in the compact represented 222 electoral votes.
Democrats’ gains in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Nevada could change that. If all five states pass compact legislation, the total would rise to 283 electoral votes. Even if Arizona, Wisconsin, or Nevada does not join, the compact would still pass the 270-vote threshold.
The change would be significant, and it raises serious constitutional questions. Under the compact, votes cast in small towns and large cities alike would count toward the same national total. Campaigns could no longer focus mainly on a handful of swing states; they would have reason to seek voters across the country.
That may sound appealing from a democratic standpoint. “Every vote equal” is the movement’s central argument. But there’s a downside, particularly for people concerned about the role of money in politics: campaigning nationwide could make elections much more expensive.
The 2026 midterms offer one comparison. Both parties competed across the country in Senate races, and total spending approached $12 billion, making it the most expensive election in U.S. history. Presidential campaigns have so far spent less; the record, set in 2020, was just over $6 billion. Many parts of the country were not seriously contested, including much of the South, Northeast, and Pacific Coast.
Under the compact, those areas could become campaign battlegrounds, including costly media markets such as New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas. Presidential elections might start to resemble midterms, but with even higher stakes. Spending on a single race for president could exceed $20 billion.
There are legal complications, too. The national popular vote is currently calculated by adding together the results from 50 states and the District of Columbia, each of which runs elections differently. Some rely heavily on mail ballots; others offer different periods for early voting. That means the process of casting and counting a vote is not uniform across the country, raising questions about whether the compact would treat voters equally.
There’s also a change in how voters may understand their influence. Since states began awarding all their electoral votes to the statewide winner in the 1830s, people have been able to see their votes as contributing to their state’s role in choosing a president. Under the compact, a state’s electoral votes would instead follow the national result, reducing the state-specific influence voters have now.
Consider an Indian-American voter in California who wanted to support Kamala Harris, the first presidential nominee of Indian descent. Under the compact, California’s electoral votes would have gone to Donald Trump in 2024, despite the state’s own result.
The five states moving toward unified Democratic control should weigh these trade-offs carefully before joining. The compact may have an appealing premise, but it also brings substantial costs and unresolved questions. If the states do join, though, the 2028 election would be historic.
