9.4 Myths about Big States

Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation has stated that the National Popular Vote Compact:

“would give the most populous states a controlling majority of the Electoral College, letting the voters of as few as 11 states control the outcome of presidential elections.”[244] [Emphasis added]

A 2011 letter signed by House Speaker John Boehner (R–Ohio), Senator Mitch McConnell (R–Kentucky), and Governor Rick Perry (R–Texas) stated:

“The goal of this effort is clear: to put the fate of every presidential election in the hands of the voters in as few as 11 states and thus to give a handful of populous states a controlling majority of the Electoral College.”

Brian Mark Weber in The Patriot Post wrote in 2020:

“Think about it: Under NPV, a candidate could theoretically lose 39 states and still win the presidency.”[245]

It is true that the 11 biggest states possessed a majority of the electoral votes, according to the 2010 census.[246]

However, the voters of these 11 states alone could elect a President in a nationwide popular vote onlyif one makes the politically preposterous assumption that one candidate receives 100% of the popular vote from each of these 11 states.

The implausibility of this hypothetical scenario is demonstrated by the fact that no big state delivered more than 63% of its two-party popular vote to any candidate in the six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020 (as shown in table 9.7).

Table 9.7 Popular-vote percentage won by the winner of the 11 biggest states 2000–2020

State	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016	2020
California	53%	54%	61%	60%	61%	63%
Texas	59%	61%	56%	57%	52%	52%
New York	60%	58%	63%	63%	59%	61%
Florida	49%	52%	51%	50%	49%	51%
Illinois	55%	55%	62%	57%	55%	57%
Pennsylvania	51%	51%	55%	52%	48%	50%
Ohio	50%	51%	52%	51%	51%	53%
Michigan	51%	51%	57%	54%	47%	51%
Georgia	55%	58%	52%	53%	50%	49%
New Jersey	56%	53%	57%	58%	55%	57%
North Carolina	56%	56%	49%	50%	50%	50%

As can be seen in the table, the highest percentage is 63%, and there were only eight cases (out of 66 entries in the table) where the winning candidate won more than 60% of the vote.

More importantly, the average of the entries in the table is 54%.

Note also that many of the percentages in the table are close to 50%, because many of the biggest states were battleground states in one or more elections.[247]

Von Spakovsky’s criticism of the National Popular Vote Compact has an even more serious flaw—it applies to the current system more than to a national popular vote.

Anyone who is concerned about the possibility that the 11 most populous states might alone control the outcome of a national popular vote by voting unanimously for one candidate should be considerably more agitated about the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

The current system enables a candidate who receives 50.01% (in fact, just a plurality) of the popular votes in the 11 most populous states to win a majority of the Electoral College (and hence the presidency).

That is, under the current system, a President could be elected with about 25% of the nationwide popular vote if one makes the politically preposterous assumption that the candidate receives 100% of the vote from each of the 11 states.[248]

Footnotes

California has 37 million people and in 2016 gave Hillary Clinton 62% of its vote and a popular-vote margin of 4.3 million votes.

Some defenders of the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes have used Clinton’s large lead in California to argue that the state would monopolize the attention of presidential candidates and dominate the choice of President under the National Popular Vote Compact.

Bryan Fischer, a talk-show host on American Family Radio, said:

“America’s Founders knew if every presidential election was decided simply by the popular vote, the larger states such as California and New York would determine the outcome of every election until the end of time.”[249], [250]

Michigan State Representative Ann Bollin said the following about the National Popular Vote Compact in June 2024:

“The ultimate goal of this legislation is to force Michigan’s electoral votes to be determined by the national popular vote, effectively silencing the voices of Michigan residents in favor of those in other states like California or New York.”[251]

In an article in the New York Times after the 2016 presidential election, Nate Cohn wrote:

“Conservative analyst Michael Barone [said] the Electoral College serves as a necessary bulwark against big states, preventing California in particular from imposing ‘something like colonial rule over the rest of the nation.’”[252] [Emphasis added]

These statements overlook the fact that the Republican Party enjoys a virtually identical base of support in a different part of the country.

As political analyst Nate Cohn observed, there is a bloc of Republican-leaning south-central states with the same population as California that gave Trump essentially the same percentage of its vote and the same popular-vote margin as California gave Clinton in 2016.

Cohn gave the name “Appalachafornia” to these Republican-leaning states.[253]

The facts concerning Appalachafornia and California in 2016 are as follows:

• Both areas gave their favored candidate almost identical percentages of their popular vote (61% versus 62%, respectively).
• Both areas gave their favored candidate almost identical margins (4.5 versus 4.3 million votes, respectively).
• Both areas had almost identical populations (37.9 and 37.3 million, respectively). Appalachafornia had 12.25% of the country’s population of 309,785,186, while California had 12.05% (according to the 2010 census).

Table 9.8 shows that the Republican-leaning states of Appalachafornia had a combined population of 37,961,426, gave Trump 61% of their vote in 2016, and gave Trump a popular-vote margin of 4,475,297 votes.[254]

Table 9.8 Appalachafornia gave Trump a margin of 4,475,297 votes in 2016.

State	Population 2010	Clinton	Trump	Clinton percent	Trump percent	Trump margin
Alabama	4,802,982	729,547	1,318,255	34%	62%	588,708
Arkansas	2,926,229	380,494.	684,872.	34%	61%	304,378
Idaho	1,573,499	189,765	409,055	27%	59%	219,290
Kansas	2,863,813	427,005	671,018	36%	57%	244,013
Kentucky	4,350,606	628,854	1,202,971	33%	63%	574,117
Louisiana	4,553,962	780,154	1,178,638	38%	58%	398,484
Montana	994,416	177,709	279,240	36%	56%	101,531
Nebraska	1,831,825	284,494	495,961	34%	59%	211,467
North Dakota	675,905	93,758	216,794	27%	63%	123,036
Oklahoma	3,764,882	420,375	949,136	29%	65%	528,761
South Dakota	819,761	117,442	227,701	32%	62%	110,259
Tennessee	6,375,431	870,695	1,522,925	35%	61%	652,230
West Virginia	1,859,815	188,794	489,371	26%	69%	300,577
Wyoming	568,300	55,973	174,419	22%	68%	118,446
Total	37,961,426	5,345,059	9,820,356	33%	61%	4,475,297

Table 9.9 shows that California had a population of 37,341,989, gave Clinton 61% of its vote, and gave Clinton a margin of 4,269,978 votes.

Table 9.9 California gave Clinton a margin of 4,269,978 votes in 2016.

State	Population 2010	Clinton	Trump	Clinton percent	Trump percent	Clinton margin
California	37,341,989	8,753,788	4,483,810	62%	32%	4,269,978

Figure 9.3 shows that the political complexion of California is a mirror image of that of a bloc of Republican-leaning south-central states.

Mike Flanagan—flantoons@btinternet.com

In a nationwide vote for President, California would not assert “colonial rule” over the rest of the United States any more than the Republican-leaning south-central states (Appalachafornia) would.

In the calculation of the national popular vote, the votes from California and the essentially equivalent Republican-leaning area would balance each other out.

The misplaced concern about California “colonization” arises from an exaggerated view of how many people live in California, how many people vote there, and how heavily Democratic it is.

The facts are that one out of eight of the country’s voters lives in California, but four out of 10 of them vote Republican. Out of the 137,125,484 votes cast nationwide for President in 2016, there were 8,753,788 votes for Clinton in California.

Conversely, one out of eight voters lives in Appalachafornia, but four out of 10 of them vote Democratic. Out of the 137,125,484 votes cast nationwide for President in 2016, Trump received 9,820,356 votes from Appalachafornia.

To put it another way, there were 118,551,340 votes cast in places other than California and Appalachafornia together in 2016.

Ironically, the “colonial rule” that Barone bemoans is actually occurring today. Both California and the equivalent Republican-leaning area support their respective favored candidates at about the 60% level. That is, neither California nor the Republican-leaning states are closely divided. As a result, both California and the Republican-leaning states are routinely ignored by presidential candidates under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

The decision as to who becomes President under the current system is not made by California or the bloc of south-central Republican-leaning states. It is made by the dozen-or-so closely divided battleground states.

If any states are exercising “colonial rule over the rest of the nation,” it is the battleground states, because they are the states that actually pick the President under the current system.

California and New York together were also equally balanced in 2016 with a slightly expanded Republican area.

There is a related myth involving California and New York together.

Michael Gomez, another defender of the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes, has extended the California “colonization” argument to include New York.

“Of Hillary Clinton’s reported 65,844,954 votes in the 2016 presidential election, 8,753,788 came from California. If California is subtracted from the equation, Donald Trump wins the national popular vote in the remaining 49 states by 1,404,903 votes. And if New York is also subtracted, Trump’s margin increases to 3,137,876. So, the notion that the NPVIC would make ‘every vote count’…, as its advocates affirm, is disproven when looking at the aforementioned raw number results.”[255] [Emphasis added]

Gomez’s argument is just as invalid as Barone’s.

If Nate Cohn’s Appalachafornia is expanded to include four additional Republican states (Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Carolina), the resulting “expanded Appalachafornia” has about the same population (58,098,701) as California and New York together (56,763,044 people). This “expanded Appalachafornia” area has 18.7% of the country’s population. California and New York together have 18.3%.

The facts in 2016 concerning the “expanded Appalachafornia” and California and New York together were:

• Both areas gave their favored candidates almost identical percentages of their popular vote (60% and 61%, respectively).
• Both areas gave their favored candidates almost identical margins (6,038,499 and 6,006,563 votes, respectively).
• Both areas had almost identical populations (58.1 and 56.8 million, respectively).

Table 9.10 shows that “expanded Appalachafornia” had a combined population of 58,098,701, gave Trump 60% of its vote in 2016, and gave Trump a margin of 6,038,499 votes.

Table 9.10 Expanded Appalachafornia gave Trump a margin of 6,038,499 votes in 2016.

State	Population 2010	Clinton	Trump	Clinton percent	Trump percent	Trump margin
Alabama	4,802,982	729,547	1,318,255	34%	62%	588,708
Arkansas	2,926,229	380,494	684,872	34%	61%	304,378
Idaho	1,573,499	189,765	409,055	27%	59%	219,290
Indiana	6,501,582	1,033,126	1,557,286	37%	60%	524,160
Kansas	2,863,813	427,005	671,018	36%	57%	244,013
Kentucky	4,350,606	628,854	1,202,971	33%	63%	574,117
Louisiana	4,553,962	780,154	1,178,638	38%	58%	398,484
Mississippi	2,978,240	485,131	700,714	40%	59%	215,583
Missouri	6,011,478	1,071,068	1,594,511	38%	60%	523,443
Montana	994,416	177,709	279,240	36%	56%	101,531
Nebraska	1,831,825	284,494	495,961	34%	59%	211,467
North Dakota	675,905	93,758	216,794	27%	63%	123,036
Oklahoma	3,764,882	420,375	949,136	29%	65%	528,761
South Carolina	4,645,975	855,373	1,155,389	41%	57%	300,016
South Dakota	819,761	117,442	227,701	32%	62%	110,259
Tennessee	6,375,431	870,695	1,522,925	35%	61%	652,230
West Virginia	1,859,815	188,794	489,371	26%	69%	300,577
Wyoming	568,300	55,973	174,419	22%	68%	118,446
Total	58,098,701	8,789,757	14,828,256	36%	60%	6,038,499

Table 9.11 shows that California and New York had a combined population of 56,763,044, gave Clinton 61% of their votes, and gave Clinton a margin of 6,006,563 votes.

Table 9.11 California and New York together gave Clinton a margin of 6,006,563 votes in 2016.

State	Population 2010	Clinton	Trump	Clinton percent	Trump percent	Clinton margin
California	37,341,989	8,753,788	4,483,810	62%	32%	4,269,978
New York	19,421,055	4,556,142	2,819,557	59%	37%	1,736,585
Total	56,763,044	13,309,930	7,303,367	61%	33%	6,006,563

Of course, there are numerous combinations of Republican states aside from Nate Cohn’s Appalachafornia that could be assembled to counterbalance California’s vote (and to counterbalance the combined votes of California and New York).

The reality is that 4.3% is the average margin in the national popular vote for President in the eight presidential elections between 1992 and 2020. That is, the presidential vote in the United States as a whole is divided approximately equally between the parties. By the way, 4% is approximately the margin of error of a typical national political poll. That is, typical recent presidential campaigns have usually been jump balls.

California and Appalachafornia were also equally balanced in 2012.

Barone’s “colonial rule” argument was equally invalid in 2012.

The facts concerning the Republican-leaning south-central states of Appalachafornia and California in 2012 are:

• Both areas gave their favored candidates almost identical percentages (61% and 60%, respectively) of their popular vote.
• Both areas gave their favored candidates similar margins (3.5 million and 3.0 million votes, respectively).
• Both areas had almost identical populations (37.9 million and 37.3 million, respectively).

Table 9.12 shows that the Republican states of Appalachafornia gave Romney 61% of their vote and a margin of 3,520,970 votes in 2012.

Table 9.12 Appalachafornia gave Romney a margin of 3,520,970 votes in 2012.

State	Population 2010	Obama	Romney	Obama percent	Romney percent	Romney margin
Alabama	4,802,982	795,696	1,255,925	38%	61%	460,229
Arkansas	2,926,229	394,409	647,744	37%	61%	253,335
Idaho	1,573,499	212,787	420,911	33%	65%	208,124
Kansas	2,863,813	439,908	689,809	38%	60%	249,901
Kentucky	4,350,606	679,370	1,087,190	38%	60%	407,820
Louisiana	4,553,962	809,141	1,152,262	41%	58%	343,121
Montana	994,416	201,839	267,928	42%	55%	66,089
Nebraska	1,831,825	302,081	475,064	38%	60%	172,983
North Dakota	675,905	124,827	188,163	39%	58%	63,336
Oklahoma	3,764,882	443,547	891,325	33%	67%	447,778
South Dakota	819,761	145,039	210,610	40%	58%	65,571
Tennessee	6,375,431	960,709	1,462,330	39%	59%	501,621
West Virginia	1,859,815	238,269	417,655	36%	62%	179,386
Wyoming	568,300	69,286	170,962	28%	69%	101,676
Total	37,961,426	5,816,908	9,337,878	38%	61%	3,520,970

Table 9.13 shows that California gave Obama 61% of its vote and a margin of 4,269,978 votes in 2012.

Table 9.13 California gave Obama a margin of 3,014,327 votes in 2012.

State	Population 2010	Obama	Romney	Obama percent	Romney percent	Obama Margin
California	37,341,989	7,854,285	4,839,958	60%	37%	3,014,327

California and Appalachafornia were also equally balanced in 2020.

The “colonial rule” argument was also invalid in 2020.

The facts concerning the Republican-leaning south-central states of Appalachafornia and California in 2020 are:

• Both areas gave their favored candidates identical percentages (63%) of their popular vote.
• Both areas gave their favored candidates similar margins (4.5 million for Appalachafornia and 5.1 million votes for California).
• Both areas had almost identical populations (39.9 and 39.5 million, respectively).

Table 9.14 shows that the Republican states of Appalachafornia (which had a 2020 population of 39,928,632) gave Trump 63% of their vote, and gave Trump a margin of 4,517,320 votes in 2020.

Table 9.14 Appalachafornia gave Trump a margin of 4,517,320 votes in 2020.

State	Population 2020	Biden	Trump	Biden percent	Trump percent	Trump Margin
Alabama	5,024,279	849,624	1,441,170	37%	63%	591,546
Arkansas	3,011,524	423,932	760,647	35%	64%	336,715
Idaho	1,839,106	287,021	554,119	33%	66%	267,098
Kansas	2,937,880	570,323	771,406	42%	57%	201,083
Kentucky	4,505,836	772,474	1,326,646	36%	63%	554,172
Louisiana	4,657,757	856,034	1,255,776	40%	59%	399,742
Montana	1,084,225	244,786	343,602	41%	58%	98,816
Nebraska	1,961,504	374,583	556,846	39%	60%	182,263
North Dakota	779,094	114,902	235,595	32%	67%	120,693
Oklahoma	3,959,353	503,890	1,020,280	32%	67%	516,390
South Dakota	886,667	150,471	261,043	36%	63%	110,572
Tennessee	6,910,840	1,143,711	1,852,475	37%	62%	708,764
West Virginia	1,793,716	235,984	545,382	30%	70%	309,398
Wyoming	576,851	73,491	193,559	27%	72%	120,068
Total	39,928,632	6,601,226	11,118,546	37%	63%	4,517,320

Table 9.15 shows that California (with a 2020 population of 39,538,223), gave Biden 63% of its votes, and gave Biden a margin of 5,103,821 votes in 2020.

Table 9.15 California gave Biden a margin of 5,103,821 votes in 2020.

State	Population 2020	Biden	Trump	Biden percent	Trump percent	Biden Margin
California	39,538,223	11,110,250	6,006,429	63%	35%	5,103,821

The talking point about California is the result of a historical accident that put most of the Pacific Coast in one state.

Barone’s talking point about California has first-blush plausibility because of the historical accident that there are only three states along the Pacific Coast, whereas there are 14 states on the Atlantic Coast.

In fact, just four of the 14 Atlantic Coast states (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina) together have considerably more people than California. That is, there is nothing particularly eye-catching about California’s population other than the fact that it is contained in one state.

If California had been admitted to the Union as six separate states in 1850 (as was suggested at the time), the populations of none of the resulting six smaller states would be particularly noteworthy today.

California was admitted to the Union as a single state under the Compromise of 1850 because of the then-delicate political balance in the U.S. Senate between slave states and free states. There was talk of creating six new states when the California statehood convention convened in Monterey in September 1849.[256]

However, the political reality in Washington at the time was that the creation of even one new free state threatened to upset the existing delicate balance between the 15 slave states and 15 free states in the U.S. Senate.

Prior to 1850, the problem of balancing slave states and free states in the U.S. Senate had been finessed for by carefully orchestrating the admission of one new slave state with each new free state.[257]

For example, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 involved simultaneously admitting a slave state (Missouri) and a free state (Maine). In fact, the creative genius of the Missouri Compromise was to carve Maine out of Massachusetts’ existing territory in order to create the necessary new free state.[258]

Prior to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, Alabama and Illinois had been admitted to the Union in the preceding two years. Mississippi and Indiana had been admitted in 1816 and 1817.

After the Missouri Compromise of 1820, Arkansas and Michigan were admitted in 1836 and 1837. Later, two slave states (Texas and Florida) and two free states (Wisconsin and Iowa) were admitted between 1845 and 1848.

Up to 1850, the slave states had maintained parity with the free states in the U.S. Senate. However, by 1850, the free states commanded a clear and growing majority in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

In 1850, there was no suitable prospective slave state available to balance out the admission of even one new free state—much less six new free states.

The possibility of creating more than one state out of the territory that is now California was foreclosed because one of the Monterey convention’s first acts was the unanimous adoption of a prohibition against slavery.

The resulting political crisis preoccupied Congress for nine months in 1850 (during which almost no other business was transacted).

The eventual Compromise of 1850 involved admitting the huge area that is now California as a single free state—thereby upsetting the 15–15 balance in the U.S. Senate by only one state. Meanwhile, the South was placated with the enactment of a harsh federal Fugitive Slave Law, a financial bailout of the slave state of Texas, and other concessions.[259]

The result of the Compromise of 1850 was that the population of the Pacific Coast today is largely concentrated in the single state of California.

Democracy is undermined by political talking points about alternative universes in which certain voters are treated as illegitimate.

In an article entitled “If Only You Couldn’t Vote,” Mark Mellman wrote:

“A favorite meme in Trump World argues that if it weren’t for California, Hillary Clinton would have lost the national popular vote for president, which she won by almost 3 million ballots. … Of course, it’s also true that without … Texas and Alaska, Trump would have lost the Electoral College along with the popular vote. … Such attempts to fashion an alternate universe attack a fundamental tenet of American democracy. …Pitting urban against rural, Texas against California, rips the ‘United’ out of the United States.”[260] [Emphasis added]

This recently minted partisan talking point has seeped into state-level politics as well. After Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) lost his 2018 re-election race, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) said:

“If you took Madison and Milwaukee out of the state election formula, we would have a clear majority.”[261]

However, as Mellman pointed out,

“Without Waukesha, Washington and Ozaukee counties, Scott Walker would not have been elected Governor in the first place.”[262]

Indeed, every loser in every election would have won if carefully selected parts of the election district had been excised from the vote count.

Footnotes

There have been six instances in the 50 presidential elections between 1824 and 2020 in which a candidate’s entire national-popular-vote margin came from just one state, as shown in table 9.16.[263], [264]

Table 9.16 There have been six presidential elections in which a candidate’s entire national-popular-vote margin came from just one state.

Year	State	Candidate who won the state	Party	Popular-vote margin of the national popular vote winner	Popular-vote margin of the national popular vote winner coming from the state
2016	California	Clinton	D	2,868,518	4,269,978
2000	California	Gore	D	543,816	1,293,774
1960	Massachusetts	Kennedy	D	118,574	510,424
1888	Texas	Cleveland	D	89,283	142,219
1884	Texas	Cleveland	D	62,670	133,030
1880	Iowa	Blaine	R	8,355	78,059

However, one presidential candidate’s entire electoral-vote margin came from just one state in 17 elections—about three times as often, as shown in table 9.17.

Table 9.17 There have been 17 presidential elections in which a candidate’s entire electoral-vote margin came from just one state.

Year	State	Candidate who won the Electoral College	Party	Electoral-vote margin of the Electoral College winner	Electoral-vote margin of the Electoral College winner coming from the one state
2004	Ohio	G.W. Bush	R	16	20
2000	Florida	G.W. Bush	R	1	25
1976	California	Carter	D	27	45
1968	California	Nixon	R	31	40
1960	New York	Kennedy	D	34	45
1948	New York	Truman	D	37	47
1916	Ohio	Wilson	D	11	24
1888	New York	B. Harrison	R	32	36
1884	New York	Cleveland	D	18	36
1880	New York	Garfield	R	29	35
1876	New York	Hayes	R	0	35
1860	New York	Lincoln	R	28	35
1856	New York	Buchanan	D	25	35
1848	New York	Taylor	Whig	17	36
1844	New York	Polk	D	32	36
1836	New York	Van Buren	D	22	42
1824	Pennsylvania	Jackson	D	15	28

Note that one candidate’s entire electoral vote margin came from just one state in four of the five elections in which that candidate failed to win the most popular votes nationwide (2000, 1888, 1876, and 1824).

This myth is one of many examples in this book of a criticism aimed at the National Popular Vote Compact where the Compact is actually slightly superior to the current system.

Footnotes

Tara Ross, a lobbyist against the National Popular Vote Compact who works closely with Save Our States, has criticized the Compact on the grounds that “11 colluding states” could, if they were to act in concert, impose a national popular vote on the country.

The 11 biggest states did indeed possess a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538, according to the 2010 census.[265]

First, the actual list of states that have adopted the National Popular Vote Compact demonstrates that Ross’ claimed “collusion” among the nation’s 11 biggest states is untrue.

As of July 2024, only four of the 11 biggest states have enacted the National Popular Vote Compact.

Specifically, the Compact has been enacted into law by 18 jurisdictions together possessing 209 electoral votes:

• six small states
• Delaware–3
• District of Columbia–3
• Hawaii–4
• Maine–4
• Rhode Island–4
• Vermont–3
• nine medium-sized states
• Colorado–10
• Connecticut–7
• Maryland–10
• Massachusetts–11
• Minnesota–10
• New Jersey–14
• New Mexico–5
• Oregon–8
• Washington–12
• three big states
• California–54
• Illinois–19
• New York–28

Second, the 11 biggest states have little in common with one another politically. They rarely act in concert on policy issues. These disparate 11 states rarely agree on a choice for President.

Table 9.18 shows the distribution of the 11 biggest states carried by the Republican and Democratic nominees.

Table 9.18 Winner of the 11 biggest states 2000–2020

Election	Republican	Democratic
2000	TX, FL, OH, GA, NC	CA, NY, IL, PA, MI, NJ
2004	TX, FL, OH, GA, NC	CA, NY, IL, PA, MI, NJ
2008	TX, GA	CA, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, NC NJ
2012	TX, GA. NC	CA, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, NC NJ
2016	TX, FL, OH, MI, GA, NC, PA	CA, NY, IL, NJ
2020	TX, FL, OH, NC	CA, NY, IL, PA, MI, GA, NJ,

Ross considers the fact that the 11 biggest states possess a majority of the electoral votes to be dangerous in terms of adopting the National Popular Vote Compact. If so, this same fact should also be considered as a reason to abandon the current system of electing the President, because these same 11 states could (if they ever were to act in concert) impose their choice for President on the country in every presidential election.

Indeed, a mere plurality of voters in states possessing a majority of the electoral votes are sufficient to produce a majority in the Electoral College under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

Footnotes