top of page

National Popular Vote does not replace the Electoral College,

 it replaces the winner-take-all laws that dominate it.

  • The Founders set up the Electoral College to be reformed without an amendment: Article II, section I, paragraph II of the Constitution says, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." That’s Founder-speak for: “Oh heck, let the states decide for themselves, we’ve got other stuff to figure out.” The winner-take-all laws that currently dominate the Electoral College are state laws that require all the electoral votes of a state be cast for the winner of the popular vote within that state. They were adopted state-by-state in a period extending from 1800 to 1880, in the manner specified by the Constitution and replaced earlier state laws concerning the appointment of electors.

  • The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV) is a 888-word piece of state legislation and simply replaces winner-take-all in the same way: by letting the states decide for themselves how to appoint their electors. Since it doesn't change the Constitution but abides by it, an amendment is not required.

  • NPV has been making its way across the country since 2006. It currently has 16 member states and D.C. worth 205 electoral votes. When the minimum number of electoral votes required to win the presidency (270) are locked up with additional states equaling another 65 electoral votes, the Compact will trigger and in the election that follows, all member states will appoint electors who are supporters of the winner of the national, NOT statewide popular vote. Many prominent Republicans favor a national popular vote.

  • Since other states (not members of the Compact) will likely end up casting their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote, the winning candidate in a NPV election could easily end up with 75% of the Electoral College vote, leaving no doubt as to the clear cut winner of the presidency.

  • Even if you DO NOT LIVE IN A MEMBER STATE, if you vote for president, you are part of the National Popular Vote and YOUR VOTE WILL COUNT FOR PRESIDENT.

Winner-Take-All vs National Popular Vote:
  1. Can either voting system be exploited?

  2. Which system protects rural states like Utah?

  3. Does either system favor a party or region?

  4. Does it really matter which system we use?

  5. Conservatives raise eyebrows, liberals gasp?

  6. What would no "sane" candidate ever do?

  7. Is there a conservative case for NPV?

  8. How does Utah rate in voter turnout?

  9. What makes Iowa & Nevada better than Utah? 

  • In 2020, if just over 20,000 votes in the unpredictable battleground states of Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin had flipped, only .02% of the 160 million cast would have picked the president for the entire nation!

  • Help spread the word about the constitutionally legal way to reform the Electoral College and make everyone's vote for president politically relevant no matter where they live.

LATEST ON NPV UTAH - January 2021                   

 1. Download the current:

National Popular Vote

Rebuttal Resource

Bullet List


  2. Download the current:​​​

National Popular Vote


Quick reponses to 

common questions


  3. Go to:    

  and click on EVENTS to sign up

  for online educational seminars.

Be a NPV know-it-all!

       that can be modified (always in

       polite and respectful ways) for

       emails, letters & post cards (the

       best) or texts to your legislators.

Contact your Utah Legislator!

Stay tuned for news on NPV in Utah and elsewhere. In the meantime please visit www.NationalPopularvote.Com to WATCH 5 TO 10 MINUTE EXPLAINER VIDEOS.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, has been introduced in the Utah state senate by Senator Derek Kitchen. To track the bill, click on: status of SB121


The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was passed on August 2, 2019 in Colorado, now states equaling 196 electoral votes have joined. When membership reaches the minimum 270 required to win the presidency, all agree to hold off awarding their electors on election night, until votes nationwide are so overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate, the remainder won’t be sufficient to change the outcome. In a squeaker, even Hawaii could make a difference. No more turning off the TV and going to bed after Florida is called. Go to for more details!

Winner-Take-All as a National Security Risk:
  • There hasn’t been a landslide election since 1988 (32 years and eight elections ago.) Three of the last five elections (2000, 2004 and 2016) had popular vote margins of less than 3% (.5%, 2.4% and 2.1% respectively)  –  In two of them, the popular vote and the electoral vote diverged, something that is likely to become more common with tighter and tighter margins between winner and loser. 

  • In 2018 testimony, before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former heads of the Department of Homeland Security (Republican Kirstjen Nielsen and Democrat Jeh Johnson) agree the current winner-take-all system is a risk to national security:

 “Swing states, and even individual precincts within those states, present a significant point of vulnerability when it comes to the threat of election interference because of their potential to impact the result in a presidential race,” NPR reported. “The reality is: Given our Electoral College … national elections are decided in this country in a few precincts, in a few key swing states,” said Johnson. “The outcome, therefore, may dance on the head of a pin.

  • With the advent of indictments against Russians for illegally using social media platforms to meddle in our last election, the winner-take-all system dominating the Electoral College (where a relatively small number of votes in just one battleground state can determine the outcome of our election) takes on the aspect of a game of Russian roulette. Given this evidence, there’s a serious question to consider: Who do we want influencing our presidential elections, the American people or the Russian government?

  • The Founders gave us a way out of this dilemma, with the discord, charges of illegitimacy and risks to national security that it brings, by specifying in the Constitution that states have the exclusive right to determine the selection of their own electors. They couldn’t decide on a cookie-cutter way to appoint electors, why should we accept one?

The trouble with the Electoral College winner-take-all map:


WINNER-TAKE-ALL ELECTORAL MAP 2016                             
  • The traditional Electoral College map creates a totally misleading representation of party influence by literally painting each state as one political bulwark or another.

  • It’s just not the case. In 2020, Utah went almost 40% Independent and Democrat, California went almost 35% Republican. Winner-take-all laws sequester those votes within state boundaries and then throws them away when the state goes "red" or "blue."

  • “Battleground” states are a product of winner-take-all laws, because it makes no sense for candidates to visit states where they are sure to win or sure to lose the popular vote within those states.

  • Alternately, spending precious campaign time and money where only a small number of votes can flip the entire electoral strength of a state in their favor, makes great sense financially and politically.

  • Since 2000, only 7 to 12 “battleground” states, ranging from small ones like New Hampshire to large ones like Florida, have controlled the outcome of presidential elections, undercutting the interests of as much as ¾ of the rest of the nation.

  • A National Popular Vote map would look more like this, making it stunningly clear that the country is just as much sagebrush, prairie, forest and farmland, than Republicans, Democrats or Independents. 

  • In a NPV election, with state boarders deemphasized, individual votes all over the country would draw in candidates like magnets, giving all states the ear of the future president, (no matter which party wins) and many of the benefits that provides. 

  • Over a million votes were cast in the rural state of Utah in 2016. That’s worth showing up for. Many presidential elections have been won or lost by less. When the whole nation is a battleground state, the voters in small states like Utah can no longer be ignored. 

bottom of page