Interesting thought - but i would prefer to not lower the Conservatives to the level of DPST behavior.
Trump's impeachment is part anger over loss in Nov. 2016, and part over Clinton's impeachment.
i worry less about warren leading a Constitutional amendment to cancel the EC - unlikely - than the National Popular vote Interstate Compact. This would obviate the EC as designed to function.
See below:
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Formation date: 2008
Member jurisdictions: 16
Issue(s): Voting
Compact website 
The
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an
interstate compact to award member states' presidential electors to the candidate that receives the most votes nationwide. The NPVIC would go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes adopt the legislation.
[1][2]
As of October 2019, 14 states and Washington, D.C., adopted legislation to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Together, they represent 187 Electoral College votes. Colorado, representing nine electoral votes, passed NPVIC legislation, but the law was suspended pending a vote on a veto referendum in 2020.[1][2]
Article II, Section 1 of the
U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to determine how their electoral votes will be awarded: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." This compact does not abolish the electoral college system; rather, the compact awards all of the electoral votes from the member states to the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide.
[1]
History
Most states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes in the state. In 2016,
Donald Trump won the presidential election with 304 electoral votes but
Hillary Clinton received the most votes nationwide. The 2016 election was not the only instance in which the winner of the presidential election did not receive the most votes nationwide; it happened in five of the 58 presidential elections in U.S. history.
[3]
Status of the compact by state
This page was last updated
December 2019.
Timeline
The following table provides a timeline of what states had joined the NPVIC, what political parties controlled government at the time, and the state's electoral votes in 2020.
State/District Year Government Enactment EVs (2020)
Maryland 2007 Democratic trifecta Gov.
Martin O'Malley signed legislation 10
New Jersey 2008 Democratic trifecta Gov.
Jon Corzine signed legislation 14
Illinois 2008 Democratic trifecta Gov.
Rod Blagojevich signed legislation 20
Hawaii 2008 Divided government Democratic-controlled legislature overrode Gov.
Linda Lingle's (R) veto of legislation 4
Washington 2009 Democratic trifecta Gov.
Christine Gregoire signed legislation 12
Massachusetts 2010 Democratic trifecta Gov.
Deval Patrick signed legislation 11
Washington, D.C. 2010 Democratic trifecta Mayor Adrian Fenty signed legislation 3
Vermont 2011 Democratic trifecta Gov.
Peter Shumlin signed legislation 3
California 2011 Democratic trifecta Gov.
Jerry Brown signed legislation 55
Rhode Island 2013 Democratic trifecta Gov.
Lincoln Chafee signed legislation 4
New York 2014 Divided government Gov.
Andrew Cuomo signed legislation 29
Connecticut 2018 Democratic trifecta Gov.
Dannel Malloy signed legislation 7
Delaware 2019 Democratic trifecta Gov.
John Carney signed legislation 3
New Mexico 2019 Democratic trifecta Gov.
Michelle Lujan Grisham signed legislation 5
Oregon 2019 Democratic trifecta Gov.
Kate Brown signed legislation 7
Total:
187 Suspended
In Colorado, the state legislature passed NPVIC legislation in 2019, which
Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed on March 15, 2019. Rose Pugliese and Don Wilson filed a
veto referendum against the legislation, and collected signatures for the law to appear on the ballot. The veto referendum was certified for the ballot on August 29, 2019, which had the effect of suspending the law until voters decide the law's fate at the election on November 3, 2020.
State/District Year Government Election EVs (2020)
Colorado 2019 Democratic trifecta On the ballot for
November 3, 2020 9
Text of the compact
The legislature of each member state passes the laws with certain and modifications, but the core of the legislation remains the same.
Article I: Membership
Any State of the United States and the District of Columbia may become a member of this agreement by enacting this agreement.
Article II: Right of the People in Member States to Vote for President and Vice President
Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.
Article III: Manner of Appointing Presidential Electors in Member States
- Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a “national popular vote total” for each presidential slate.
- The chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the “national popular vote winner.”
- The presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment in that official’s own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner.
- At least six days before the day fixed by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, each member state shall make a final determination of the number of popular votes cast in the state for each presidential slate and shall communicate an official statement of such determination within 24 hours to the chief election official of each other member state.
- The chief election official of each member state shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate made by the day established by federal law for making a state’s final determination conclusive as to the counting of electoral votes by Congress.
- In event of a tie for the national popular vote winner, the presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment of the elector slate nominated in association with the presidential slate receiving the largest number of popular votes within that official’s own state.
- If, for any reason, the number of presidential electors nominated in a member state in association with the national popular vote winner is less than or greater than that state’s number of electoral votes, the presidential candidate on the presidential slate that has been designated as the national popular vote winner shall have the power to nominate the presidential electors for that state and that state’s presidential elector certifying official shall certify the appointment of such nominees. The chief election official of each member state shall immediately release to the public all vote counts or statements of votes as they are determined or obtained.
- This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes.
Article IV: Other Provisions
- This agreement shall take effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form and the enactments by such states have taken effect in each state.
- Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.
- The chief executive of each member state shall promptly notify the chief executive of all other states of when this agreement has been enacted and has taken effect in that official’s state, when the state has withdrawn from this agreement, and when this agreement takes effect generally.
- This agreement shall terminate if the electoral college is abolished.
- If any provision of this agreement is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
Article V: Definitions
For purposes of this agreement,
- “chief executive” shall mean the Governor of a State of the United States or the Mayor of the District of Columbia;
- “elector slate” shall mean a slate of candidates who have been nominated in a state for the position of presidential elector in association with a presidential slate;
- “chief election official” shall mean the state official or body that is authorized to certify the total number of popular votes for each presidential slate;
- “presidential elector” shall mean an elector for President and Vice President of the United States;
- “presidential elector certifying official” shall mean the state official or body that is authorized to certify the appointment of the state’s presidential electors;
- “presidential slate” shall mean a slate of two persons, the first of whom has been nominated as a candidate for President of the United States and the second of whom has been nominated as a candidate for Vice President of the United States, or any legal successors to such persons, regardless of whether both names appear on the ballot presented to the voter in a particular state;
- “state” shall mean a State of the United States and the District of Columbia; and
- “statewide popular election” shall mean a general election in which votes are cast for presidential slates by individual voters and counted on a statewide basis.
Arguments
The
Congressional Research Service published a document on the NPVIC, which contained arguments for and against the compact. The following are excerpts of the arguments:
[4]
Support
- "Proponents of the NPV initiative arguably share the philosophical criticism voiced by proponents of direct popular election, who maintain that the electoral college system is intrinsically undemocratic—it provides for “indirect” election of the President and Vice President."
- "NPV advocates also assert the compact would provide a practical benefit to states that tend to be noncompetitive in presidential elections and which therefore receive fewer campaign visits by major party candidates. With “every vote equal,” NPV maintains that presidential and vice presidential nominees and their organizations would need to spread their presence and resources more evenly as they campaigned for every vote nationwide, rather than concentrate on winning key “battleground” states."
- "NPV advocates also maintain that the concentration of campaign resources, advertising, and candidate appearances in battleground states depresses turnout in “flyover” states, where candidates make few campaign appearances."
Opposition
- "Some argue that it is unconstitutional or “anticonstitutional,” that is, contrary to the Founders’ intentions and the spirit of the nation’s fundamental charter."
- "The existing electoral college system, NPV skeptics might also assert, is a fundamental element in the federal constitutional arrangements established by the Constitution. Fearing “the tyranny of the majority,” the Founders established a system of government that provides checks and balances designed to restrain the majority and secure minority rights."
- "Successful nominees are compelled under this system to present a broad political vision that commands nation-spanning “concurrent majorities” and appeals to the great variety of Americans. ... The NPV initiative, they could claim, would discard the Founders’ intentions in favor of what they consider to be a flawed “majoritarian” presidency that would ill-serve a continent-spanning and profoundly diverse republic."
Constitutionality of compact
The
Compact Clause of the
U.S. Constitution says that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State..." Proponents of the NPVIC argue that the compact is constitutional, whereas opponents argue the compact is an unconstitutional violation of the Compact Clause without Congress' consent.
Constitutional
Jessica Heller, a legal writer at
FairVote:
[5]
“ On its face, the Compact Clause does ostensibly prohibit any compact between states lacking congressional consent. However, the Supreme Court has definitively stated that “not all agreements between States are subject to the strictures of the Compact clause.” U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 98 S.Ct. 799, 469 (1978). Rather, the prohibition is only directed “to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” Id at 468, quoting Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893). Therefore, if the NPVC does not infringe upon federal supremacy, it does not require congressional consent. By that logic, the NPVC is certainly valid as it stands. ...
Electors are chosen by the state, and are therefore state, rather than federal officials. The states’ plenary power to choose its electors goes to the heart of a republic government, a government whose leader is chosen by the people. Requiring congressional approval would directly infringe on that power, meaning that any claim that the Compact Clause would require such approval for the NPVC would put the Compact Clause and the Guarantee Clause in direct conflict with one another. ...
Each state’s votes would still be counted, and each state would have an equally important role in choosing the President. Nothing in the NPVC would alter non-compacting states’ sovereign right to choose its electors. Therefore, any Compact Clause challenge to the NPVC should fail.
[6]
”
Unconstitutional
William G. Ross, a law professor at Cumberland School of Law at Samford University:
[7]
“ Although the US Supreme Court has concluded that the Compact Clause does not require Congress to consent to compacts that affect only the internal affairs of the compacting states, it has indicated in US Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission that the Compact Clause requires Congress to consent to an agreement that “would enhance the political power of the member States in a way that encroaches upon the supremacy of the United States,” or “impairs the sovereign rights of non-member states.” ...
Although the compact would not violate the letter of the Constitution since it would retain the Electoral College and would not alter the method by which electoral votes are assigned or change the number of electoral votes that any state has, it would jettison the federalist structure of the Electoral College to the extent that the popular vote rather than the votes of individual states would determine the outcome. The compact’s reduction of the Electoral College to an empty shell would therefore thwart the intention of the Framers of the original Constitution and the framers of the Twelfth Amendment, which reformed the Electoral College in 1804, since the Constitution clearly contemplates that electoral votes will be cast by the states as states rather than by the states as collective or compacting entities.
[6]
”
Recent events
August 29, 2019: Colorado NPVIC to appear on the ballot in 2020
The campaign Coloradans Vote reported submitting over 227,000 signatures for a
veto referendum designed to place Colorado's NPVIC legislation, passed in March 2019, on the ballot. At least 124,632 signatures had to be valid. On August 29, 2019,
Secretary of State Jena Griswold announced that the veto referendum qualified for the election on November 3, 2020, which had the effect of suspending the law from going into effect until voters decide the law's fate.
[8]
June 19, 2019: Maine House rejects NPVIC legislation
On May 14, 2019, the
Maine State Senate voted 19-16 on Legislative Document 816 (LD 816) to join Maine in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
[9] The
Maine House of Representatives rejected LD 816 in a vote of 66-76 on May 30, 2019.
[10] The state House reconsidered LD 816 on June 19, 2019, voting 69-74 to reject the bill.
[11]
June 12, 2019: Oregon joins NPVIC
On June 12, 2019, Oregon
Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed Senate Bill 870 (SB 870) to join Oregon in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. In the state Senate, the bill was passed 17-12. In the state House, the bill was passed 37-22.
[12][13]
May 30, 2019: Nevada Democratic Gov. Sisolak vetoes NPVIC bill
On May 30, 2019, Nevada Democratic
Gov. Steve Sisolak vetoed Assembly Bill 186 (AB 186), which would have joined Nevada in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Gov. Sisolak said, "Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose."
[14]
On April 16, 2019, the
Nevada State Assembly voted 23-17 on AB 186 to join Nevada in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
[15][16] On May 21, 2019, the
Nevada State Senate voted 12-8 on AB 186, sending the bill to the governor's desk.
[17]
April 3, 2019: New Mexico joins NPVIC
On April 3, 2019,
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signed House Bill 55 (HB 55), joining New Mexico in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The
state House approved HB 55 in a 41-27 vote on February 1, 2019. The
state Senate approved the legislation in a 25-16 vote on March 12, 2019.
[18]
March 28, 2019: Delaware joins NPVIC
Gov.
John Carney Jr. (D) signed Senate Bill 22 (SB 22) on March 28, 2019, joining Delaware in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Sen. Bryan Townsend (D-11) sponsored the legislation. The
state Senate passed SB 22 in a vote of 14-7 on March 7, 2019. The
state House passed the bill in a vote of 24-17 on March 14.
March 15, 2019: Colorado joins NPVIC
On March 15, 2019, Colorado
Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed Senate Bill 42 (SB 42) into law, which joined Colorado in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. State Sen.
Mike Foote (D-17) and Reps.
Emily Sirota (D-9) and
Jennifer Arndt (D-53) sponsored the law in the
Colorado State Legislature. SB 42 passed the
Colorado State Senate on January 29, 2019, in a vote of 19 to 16. On February 21, 2019, the
Colorado House of Representatives approved SB 42, with 34 senators supporting the legislation and 29 senators opposing the legislation.
[19][20][21]
