The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

To blunt the anti-democratic nature of the Electoral College (EC) the idea of an agreement among states with at least 270 Electoral College votes has been proposed. 270 EC votes gives the presidential candidate that receives those votes the win. Right now, after the MAGA wipeout, there are enough blue states with 270 EC votes among them to agree to award all their state’s votes to the candidate who got the most votes nationally.

Such an agreement would do two things. First, it would get rid of elections where a candidate lost the national vote but won the EC vote to become president. Second, it would create the possibility that a state that voted for the lower vote candidate could award all of its EC votes to the other candidate. The current system can thus create voters nationwide whose preference is not reflected in the outcome of all voters nationally. The proposed interstate compact would do the same, but for statewide voters if most of their state’s votes went to the national vote count loser. This is an intended feature of the compact, because the national result, not the statewide vote, would determine its electoral vote allocation.

So, neither system is, or would be, perfect. But, the interstate compact would generally be less imperfect than the current system. The proposed compact would directly address two major objections to the current system. First, each additional vote would contribute to the nationwide total that determines the winner, regardless of whether it was cast in a Democratic, Republican, or contested state. This would give campaigns stronger incentives to seek votes beyond battleground states. Second, a candidate could no longer win the presidency while receiving fewer national votes than an opponent.

A state’s electors going against its statewide result would not be a failure of the system if a majority of state voters’ preference was thwarted by the total national count. Instead, would be the mechanism for honoring the national result over the state result. The disagreement is about which electorate’s preference should govern, i.e., each state’s separately or the country’s collectively. So, if the goal is to give all voters nationwide an equal say in choosing the president and ensure that the candidate receiving the most votes nationwide wins, the interstate compact would be an improvement over the current system.

But it is legal?

Article II of the US Constitution says that the state have the power to decide how they award their EC votes. The Constitution does not require states to award their electors to their own statewide popular-vote winner. By that source of state power, it is legal.

But, Article I of the US Constitution says states may not, “without the Consent of Congress,” enter into an “Agreement or Compact” with another state. By that source of federal power, it is arguably unconstitutional. The USSC has held that not every interstate agreement requires congressional consent. Its decisions focus on agreements that enhance state power in ways that encroach on federal supremacy.

So the question boils down to, would an interstate compact to blunt the anti-democratic effect of the EC on presidential elections encroach on federal power? Obviously, if such a compact is made among blue states, MAGA elites and the MAGA party (both being inherently anti-democracy) will vehemently argue that such a compact encroaches on federal power and is thus unconstitutional unless congress approves the deal.

What are most Americans?

The result of the elections this week gives some comfort that most Americans are still not knowingly extremists or authoritarian. The proposed interstate compact would tend to force extremist candidates like Trump or most MAGA politicians to at least partly soften the harshness of their usually divisive, poisonous demagoguery.

Since most Americans are not ideological extremists, a national popular-vote system could strengthen incentives for candidates to moderate their platforms, or at least discourage openly extremist appeals to base human instincts. Obviously that would not eliminate extremism. If an extremist candidate wins through deceit and concealment and then implements an extremist agenda while in office, voters would have been deprived of an honest choice without their knowledge or consent. An interstate compact would prevent extremist candidates from using an EC advantage to overcome a national popular-vote defeat.

Q: Do you support an interstate compact as described here?

Some info sources:

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

CRS analysis: The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact

America Finally Has the Votes to End the Electoral College — the most seismic result for American politics and democracy may come out of the battleground states where Democrats just won trifecta control by taking both state houses and the governor’s mansion: Come January, Democratic legislators will have the votes to elect the next president by the popular vote.

U.S. Political Parties Historically Polarized Ideologically

Moderates

 

MAGA's revised mindset, messaging & tactics

 

The magnitude of voter’s rejection of MAGA politics, policy, tactics, and performance is probably still settling into the minds of MAGA elites and some others too, e.g., me. For the most part, the elections forced MAGA elites into a mostly defensive mindset and posture compared to their pervious aggressive and attacking mindset and tactics. It is highly unlikely that Trump or the remaining MAGA elites in elected offices will change much from three important traits of their pre-election mindset.

First, they will continue to support tyranny (mostly dictatorship, oligarchy, and Christian nationalist theocracy), deep corruption, service to special interests at the expense of the people and the public interest, and shameless pollution for profit. Second, they will continue to oppose democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties, and honest, competent, transparent governance. Finally, MAGA elites will continue to rely heavily on aggressive demagoguery, with its constant deceit, lies, slanders, knowingly flawed (crackpot) reasoning, and knowingly divisive irrational emotional manipulation to foment unwarranted fear, anger, hate, intolerance, bigotry, racism, etc. (emotional poisoning).

That much is about as near to a certainty as anything in politics can get. The eat-your-face MAGA leopard ain’t gonna change its spots. There’s just way too damned much wealth and power at stake to walk back to a pro-public interest, pro-democracy, pro-rule of law mindset.

The MAGA hat is the leopard’s, not the face’s

But, given the high magnitude of MAGA’s election losses, we should expect some recalibration in MAGA’s divisive demagoguery tactics and focus. Two major lines of MAGA’s post-election defense and offense come to mind.

Slandering congressional oversight

The first line of defense that comes from the elite MAGA mind wondering ‘what the hell are the dems gonna do once they control congress?’ Good question. Probably the very first thing that jumps into elite MAGA consciousness is something like ‘holy crap batman, they are gonna do legal congressional oversight and find out about all the crap, corruption and incompetence we have ignored since the day in Jan. 2025 when Trump was sworn into office. How the hell are we going to deal that gigantic embarrassment?’

To one familiar with demagoguery and its tactics, the answer to that is instantly obvious. Simply do what demagogues always do in the face of inconvenient truth about incompetence, corruption, cruel tyranny, waste, fraud, grifting, treason, pedophilia, etc. Lie, deny, deceive, distract, distort, downplay, confuse, slander, crackpot, and emotionally poison. Those same propaganda tactics have been successfully used for over a century, probably millennia, to hide and distort bad news or to confuse the public into paralysis, false beliefs, etc.

So, when the dems start to engage with constitutionally legal congressional oversight of incompetence, sleaze, crimes, corruption, pedophilia, etc. by Trump and his MAGA elites, MAGA’s well-funded demagoguery industry will immediately attack calling it unwarranted partisan revenge, a constitutional outrage, etc. That exact argument has already been raised here at BNR by a MAGA troll as a pre-emptive MAGA defense even before the dems are seated in congress. It is almost a certainty that criticisms of congressional oversight by dems will be attacked and discredited in any way that highly paid, morally rotted MAGA demagogues can think of.

Digression: FWIW, MAGA operatives are not highly paid unless they are morally rotted. Moral rot, and blind loyalty, are mandatory qualifications for MAGA salary and perks.

Two points are worth mention. First, legitimate congressional oversight is not revenge. It is what congress was supposed to be doing, but failed to do, ever since Trump was sworn into office in Jan. 2025. MAGA congresses do not do oversight of their own. They protect their own.

Second, MAGA blowhards bitching and whining about revenge is hypocrisy. Trump himself told us “I am your retribution”. From the MAGA point of view, revenge by their own is perfectly acceptable, probably commendable. But constitutionally legal oversight by the opposition is horrible, terrible partisan revenge. See the shamelessness of the hypocrisy there?

The new boogeyman

Another deficiency that MAGA demagoguery needs to fix is the list boogeymen that MAGA demagoguery can use to divide, scare, anger and poison people’s minds with. Tinkering with the list seems to be in order. Appeals to grave threats from communists, socialists, the LGBQT community, the radical left, illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, feminists, Antifa, journalists, “deep state” monsters, DEI, etc., did not resonate with voters enough to prevent the shellacking that Trump and MAGA politicians got two days ago.

To win power and stay in power, authoritarians and kleptocrats almost always need one or more scapegoats to attack. The old list clearly did not work in the last election. So, if American tyranny and kleptocracy are to persist past Trump, effective scapegoats need to be found and scapegoated. Trump loves America’s enemies and tyrants everywhere, so making Russia, China or North Korea into a viable boogeyman seems unlikely. Global warming and the Green New Deal have proven to be rather ineffective boogeymen to attack for major public support.

So who or what is left to demagogue for a boogeyman? Well, how about the Jews? For decades, maybe centuries, the Jews have been a common boogeyman for authoritarians and kleptocrats. They are a great target for blaming societies’ problems on. MAGA elites could choose to target Jews, while quietly trying hard to keep the flow of Jewish money into MAGA coffers flowing. But even if Jewish money stops flowing to MAGA coffers, there is far more money to be harvested from non-Jewish authoritarians and kleptocrats. Maybe MAGA elites will decide they can lose the money if demagoguing Jews helps fill MAGA’s need for more boogeymen to attack and slander.

Q1: How likely is it that MAGA demagoguery will attack dems doing legal congressional oversight as unwarranted partisan revenge, or even illegal?

Q2: How likely is it that MAGA demagoguery will attack Jews to fill MAGA tyranny’s need for boogeymen?

Some info sources:

Trump vows retribution at Waco rally: “I am your warrior, I am your justice” — “I am your warrior, I am your justice,” Trump said in a nearly 90-minute speech, most of it focused on perceived political enemies and slights. “For those who have been wronged and betrayed … I am your retribution.” Trump positioned himself as the sole protector of American values, painting a grim future if he is denied a second four-year term. (emphasis added)

Trump, at Latino event, stands by false claims of immigrants eating pets

Trump repeats false claims that children are undergoing transgender surgery during the school day

Trump suggests he’ll use the military on ‘the enemy from within’ the U.S. if he’s reelected

Now what? More of the same but different?

 

Fun election time!

To some, MAGA’s election losses were unexpected. To others, the polls predicted it. Regardless of predictions, now the Dems have some power to try to do something about that colossal mess they inherit. What can they possibly do?

Trump told The New York Times, “I am absolutely willing to accept those results,” and said he looked forward to working with Democrats. He also congratulated Democrats for campaigning effectively. Alongside those statements he posted: “I wasn’t on the Ballot and if I was, we would have won IN A LANDSLIDE!” He also promoted a red cap bearing the word “VETO.” AP reports that he denied the losses amounted to a personal defeat and threatened to veto Democratic legislation. Clearly, Trump is not contrite or accepting any responsibility. How that plays out with Dems in charge of congress isn’t clear.

Trump and MAGA elites apparently are not boing to try to contest the election results. That’s a surprise to some, e.g., me. Apparently, the election wins for Dems were too big for MAGA to rig, despite their desire to rig it (link 1, link 2). That’s a very good thing.

The Dems do not have enough votes to overcome a MAGA party veto of Dem bills in the Senate. There’s no reason to think that (1) MAGA senators will choose to be reasonably bipartisan, or (2) major MAGA donors would want them to be reasonably bipartisan. But, time will tell how that plays out.

All the pro-corruption and pro-dictatorship decisions the USSC has made are still in effect. Trump still has vast power, immunity from criminal prosecution, and a vicious, deeply corrupt mindset. That’s not going to change.

Corporate/Wall Street Dems in congress will still be at odds with the liberals, progressives and socialists. That won’t change.

A hopeful sign is that the depth of voter discontent was sufficient to shift control of congress from MAGA to the Dems. That shift came despite years of MAGA demagoguery smearing the Dems as evil, tyrants, socialists, communists, anti-White racists, open border freaks, radical DEI extremists, America haters, and other kinds of fake monsters. Apparently, unhappiness over inflation and the cost of living, the Iran war, AI data centers, special interest money corrupting politics, and maybe some other factors were sufficient to nudge enough voters to vote Dem despite their MAGA-created fears. That seems to be a big deal.

Yesterday, Nov. 3, Bernie Sanders probably accurately summed up what the Dems are facing. An article states the issue, Sanders Calls for ‘Fundamental and Immediate Reform’ to Democratic Party If It Wins Elections. He said, “With a return to power, [the Democratic Party] can no longer continue to ignore the major economic and political crises facing the majority of our people ….. or that return to power will be short-lived.” That sounds about right.

So, for people opposed to Trump and MAGA’s cruel authoritarian, kleptocratic politics, tactics and policy, enjoy the Dem win for a while. This is a very good thing. After that, things will get interesting again. The war of ghastly corruption and tyranny against less corruption, democracy, and the rule of law will continue, but probably in less overt ways.

Q1: Is Bernie right that the Dem Party needs to fix itself?

Q2: Can the Dem Party with its groups at odds probably fix itself in the way that Sanders and maybe most Americans envision or would want?

Some info sources:

Vivek Ramaswamy’s Concession to Amy Acton Went to Voicemail

10 States With Data Centers on the Ballot All Voted to Ban Them | Out of 41 ballot initiatives, just one very local measure in support of data centers passed

Montana Bans Dark Money, Setting Up Challenge to Citizens United

The Democratic majority Chuck Schumer will lead has changed. Will he change with it? — As Democrats grow more divided over Israel, Schumer may have to choose between his longtime support for Israel and what his party wants (Comment: Corporate dinosaurs, and Israel supporters that control the Dem Party are a major impediment to Dem unity, but the old guard is backed by lots of special interest money, and the powerful pro-Israel lobby)

Trump Tries to Blame Everyone But Himself for Democratic Sweep — After begging voters to act as if he were on the ballot, Donald Trump is struggling to cope with the fact that they did (Comment: Trump is not struggling with that, he simply blames others for his own role in MAGA’s losses)

Regarding internet trolls

 

Troll tactic #5: ad hominem attack

Internet trolls are very bad for democracy and truth, to say the least. Lying, slandering, insulting, crackpotting (flawed reasoning), and fomenting irrational emotional responses are standard tactics for internet trolls doing politics. That applies to demagoguery from Trump, and MAGA elites generally. Facts, truths and good faith reasoning almost always contradict troll mind poisoning lies, slanders, manipulations, etc.

Some honest, good faith info about trolls and how they poison minds seems appropriate for election day.

Description of a troll

An internet troll can be generally described as someone who deliberately provokes, antagonizes, or derails online political discussion as a way to provoke anger, get attention, or create division instead of a good-faith exchange of ideas. The troll’s defining feature is deliberate provocation, not simply disagreement or strong, good faith criticism. It’s mostly bad faith and ill-will. Common troll tactics include insults, inflammatory claims, misleading posts, logic flaws (straw man argument, false dilemma argument, etc.), and pretending to engage sincerely while baiting others into futile arguments the troll has no intention of dealing with respectfully and sincerely. Some trolls act independently. Others participate in organized campaigns to spread propaganda or poison political opinion.

Troll Politics — For the majority of the twentieth century, trolls gradually became more and more tame in the face of vanishing cultural heritage. Still, they have gained strength in the last few decades due to the Internet, essentially reincarnated as online trolls.

Political trolls adapt, create material to deceive and confuse the public

And then there’s science!

Troll story: The dark tetrad and online trolling revisited with a glance at humor — Internet trolling is considered a negative form of online interaction that can have detrimental effects on people’s well-being. (comment: Duh. Can have detrimental effects? Trolls do have detrimental effects)

New research finds that many Internet trolls are ’everyday sadists’ — Conclusion: Those who rated highest on the scales for narcissism, psychopathology, Machiavellianism and sadism — highest of all for the trait of sadism — were the same people who were trolls.

Q1: Are there any trolls who routinely participate in any online politics you are aware of, and if so, do you believe that they are, in general, they more harmful than helpful?

Q2: Is it likely that research indicating some degree of mental illness or abnormality is common among internet trolls doing politics is true?