Democratic gains in the midterms have renewed efforts to change how the United States chooses its president, potentially affecting the 2028 election.
Democrats now hold the governorship and both legislative chambers in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada. Those states have 50 Electoral College votes combined. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been adopted by 18 states and Washington, D.C., whose pledged votes total 222. If the four newly Democratic-led states joined, the compact would reach 272 votes, surpassing the 270 needed to take effect. Arizona could raise the total to 283 if Democrats gain control of both legislative chambers there.
National Popular Vote, the group behind the compact, says it has found legislative sponsors in all five states and expects bills to be filed before or early in their 2027 sessions. Senior consultant Patrick Rosenstiel said he sees several ways to secure the 48 additional electoral votes needed, adding that the group believes a majority of Americans support the change.
Under the current system, nearly every state awards all its electoral votes to the statewide winner. Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions. If the compact takes effect, its member states would award their electors to the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide. The Electoral College would remain in place, but the national popular vote would determine how participating states allocate their votes.
Supporters say the approach would give each ballot equal weight by basing the result on one nationwide tally. Critics argue the Electoral College is designed to ensure that both large and small states have a role in selecting the president.
Election law expert Hans von Spakovsky, of the conservative group Advancing American Freedom and a former Federal Election Commission member, argued that states cannot use an agreement among themselves to fundamentally change the Electoral College. He called the compact unprecedented, comparing it with traditional state agreements on matters such as shared waterways, and said he expects the Supreme Court could reject it.
Rosenstiel disputed that view. He said the group interprets Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as giving states authority over how presidential electors are appointed. In his view, the central legal question is whether the compact needs approval from Congress.
Von Spakovsky said the Constitution’s Compact Clause could require congressional approval. He noted that approval might be possible through simple majorities in the House and Senate, and argued that the Constitution does not clearly require the president’s signature for such approval. That could mean a presidential veto would not necessarily block the compact.
He also said states that do not join could challenge the agreement in court. In his view, they could argue that the compact changes a basic feature of the constitutional system without an amendment and undermines the balance between states and the federal government.
The compact would apply to the 2028 election only if participating states represent at least 270 electoral votes by July 20 of that year. If the threshold is reached, lawmakers, Congress—if its approval is required—and the courts would have less than two years to settle the remaining political and legal questions.
For now, the Electoral College system remains unchanged. Rosenstiel said he is increasingly optimistic that the compact could take effect in time for 2028 and urged people to prepare for that possibility.
