Democrats made gains in the US Midterms. Could four states change how America elects its President? The 2028 Math explained

A presidential candidate can win more votes than anyone else in the country and still lose the White House. Al Gore did in 2000. So did Hillary Clinton in 2016. An agreement among states aims to prevent it from happening again. For years, Democrats did not have enough electoral votes to fo ahead with the plan. Democratic gains in the US Midterms have put that number within reach on paper. The question now is whether lawmakers in some of the country’s most closely watched battleground states are willing to sign on or not.

How would the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact work?

States that join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact agree to award their electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide. A state could therefore give its electoral votes to a candidate who lost within its borders. Under the current system, most states award all their electoral votes to their own statewide winner.

The agreement kicks in only when its members control at least 270 electoral votes which is actually enough to elect a president. The compact would keep the Electoral College in place and change how participating states award their votes. Abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment.

Why do Democratic gains in the US Midterms matter?

According to the USA Today report, the compact’s members account for 222 electoral votes after Virginia joined in April. The agreement needs 48 more now. Democrats’ midterm gains gave them control of the governor’s office and both legislative chambers in several states where the proposal could advance.

Four of those states could close the gap: Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have 50 electoral votes between them. If all four joined, the total would reach 272. Minnesota also gained unified Democratic control, but it joined the compact in 2023. Its 10 electoral votes are already included in the 222.

Could the popular vote decide the 2028 presidential election?

It could, but reaching 270 depends on votes in state legislatures. Unified party control makes it easier to bring up a bill. It does not guarantee that lawmakers will pass it. For example: Pennsylvania gets substantial attention from presidential campaigns under the current system.

Some lawmakers may hesitate to give up that advantage. Nevada offers a precedent: Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak vetoed a compact bill in 2019 over concerns about the influence of smaller states.

Legal disputes could follow even if enough states sign up. Supporters point to the Constitution’s grant of power to states to decide how to appoint electors. A separate question is whether the Constitution’s Compact Clause requires congressional consent. Notre Dame election law professor Derek Muller told USA Today that he believes it does. For 2028, the first sign of movement will be whether lawmakers put bills on the calendar in the states that could push the compact over the threshold.

FAQs

How many electoral votes does the compact still need?

It needs 48 more to reach 270, based on the reported total of 222.

Would Americans cast a different ballot?

No. Voters would still vote in their states. The compact changes how participating states award their electoral votes.