KIRO Radio hosts Jake Skorheim and Spike O'Neill recently debated Washington's decision to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. the agreement would shift the state's electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote once a specific threshold is met.
The 270-vote threshold and the current 222-vote total
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) functions as a collective agreement among states to redirect their electoral votes.. As reported by KIRO Radio, the compact currently consists of 18 states and Washington, D.C., which together control 222 electoral votes. The agreement is designed to remain dormant until member states reach the 270-vote threshold required to secure a presidential victory.
Crucially, the NPVIC does not seek to abolish the Electoral College through a formal constitutional amendment. Instead, it leverages the existing power of states to determine how their electors are chosen. Once the 270-vote mark is hit, participating states like Washington would award their votes to the candidate who won the most individual votes across the entire United States, regardless of the local result in that specific state.
Jake Skorheim's claim of a "constitutional bypass"
During the broadcast,Jake Skorheim argued that the NPVIC represents an attempt to circumvent the U.S.. Constitution without following the formal amendment process. Skorheim pointed to the Federalist Papers to argue that the founders specifically designed the Electoral College to prevent "majority tyranny," ensuring that a few high-population centers cannot dominate the rest of the country.
This tension highlights a broader American political trend where states attempt to solve federal gridlock through interstate agreements. According to the KIRO report,Skorheim specifically linked this move to previous tactics used by Democrats in Washington regarding income tax laws, suggesting a pattern of avoiding traditional legislative or constitutional hurdles to achieve policy goals.
Wyoming's three votes versus the battleground focus of Michigan and Pennsylvania
The debate over the NPVIC often centers on the tension between small-state protection and voter equality.. Jake Skorheim noted that the current system grants Washington 12 votes, California 54, and Wyoming only three, a structure he believes prevents larger cities like Seattle or Bellevue from imposing their will on smaller neighbors.
Conversely, Spike O'Neill argued that the current system fails small states in practice. O'Neill pointed out that presidential campaigns almost entirely ignore non-competitive states, focusing instead on a handful of battlegrounds such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Florida. in O'Neill's view, the NPVIC would force candidates to care about every voter in every state, rather than just those in a few swing districts.
The legal void regarding Supreme Court intervention
While the KIRO Radio debate focused on the ethics and practicality of the compact, several critical legal questions remain unanswered.. The source does not specify whether the NPVIC has faced a definitive challenge in the federal courts, nor does it address how the Supreme Court might rule on a state's right to pledge its electors to a national rather than a local winner.
Furthermore, it remains unclear if a state can unilaterally withdraw from the compact once the 270-vote threshold is reached, or if the agreement creates a binding contractual obligation that overrides subsequent state legislative changes. The report presents the arguments of the two hosts but does not provide a legal analysis of the compact's viability under the Compact Clause of the U.S.. Constitution.
Comments 0