OPINION:
Similar to the partisan gerrymandering that passed on the ballot, Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s signing of Virginia’s entry into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was characterized as a win for democracy.
Democrats at least had a logical self-interest in the absurdly drawn congressional maps. The national popular vote legislation, by contrast, harms the entire state regardless of party.
It was a self-inflicted loss of political influence at a time when the commonwealth was regaining national relevance.
In 2020, Virginia voted for Democratic nominee Joseph R. Biden by about 10 percentage points. By 2024, that margin had narrowed to about 5 points for Kamala Harris. Preelection polling even showed the contest to be as close as 2 points, enough to prompt Donald Trump to stump in Virginia.
For Republicans to halve the Democrat advantage is not a rounding error. It is a signal that Virginia could drift back toward battleground status after years of leaning comfortably blue.
Competitive states attract campaign visits, advertising dollars, a flood of national media, policy attention and turnout operations that energize voters and elevate local concerns. Not to mention that all those visitors bring more money into Virginia’s coffers, which leaders across the political spectrum should support.
The compact threatens to erase that potential advantage.
Under its terms, Virginia would be required to award all 13 of its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner — regardless of how Virginians themselves vote — once participating states reach 270 electoral votes. With Virginia’s addition, the compact now sits at 222 electoral votes.
Now consider what that would mean in practice. If it had been in effect in the last election, then the commonwealth would have been compelled to hand its electoral votes to Mr. Trump. Extend that scenario to other compact states, and the result becomes even more jarring. Places such as California, New York and Massachusetts could be awarding their electoral votes to a Republican nominee despite overwhelming Democratic majorities at home.
In some ways, Trump supporters might love it, but broadly speaking, a national popular vote election undermines federalism and the states’ checks on the federal government.
That is not a hypothetical designed to shock. It is the logical consequence of the compact’s design.
The debate over the Electoral College versus the popular vote has gone on for decades. Virginia’s decision should be judged on Virginia’s interests, not on abstract theories of electoral reform. On that score, the move is hard to defend.
Competitive states matter. Candidates spend time there because they must. They tailor policies, build local coalitions and respond to regional concerns. Virginians benefit from that attention.
Northern Virginia’s economic priorities, Hampton Roads’ military presence, rural concerns in the southwest — these issues get heard if Virginia is in play again.
The compact, if it ever takes effect, would change that calculus.
If presidential elections are effectively nationalized, then campaigns will chase marginal votes in population centers rather than invest in persuading voters in states such as Virginia. The commonwealth’s distinct political voice would be diluted into a national tally. The incentive to engage Virginia voters as Virginians diminishes.
Other Democratic governors have recognized this trade-off. In 2019, Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, vetoed a similar measure, warning that his state would lose its leverage as a battleground.
In 2024, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, expressed reservations about surrendering state-level influence in presidential elections, as one of two states (with Nebraska) that award electors based on congressional districts. Seeing the political winds in her party, she let the legislation become law without her signature.
Mr. Sisolak and Ms. Mills were not conservatives defending the Electoral College on principle, but rather Democrats recognizing the practical benefits of political competitiveness.
Ms. Spanberger chose a different path. That decision is especially puzzling given her political brand. She has long presented herself as a pragmatic moderate willing to break with her party.
A veto here would have reinforced that image while protecting Virginia’s interests. Instead, she aligned with a policy that supposedly advances a national Democratic agenda at the expense of her own state’s clout. The partisan advantage is even questionable.
Even if the compact never reaches 270 electoral votes, Virginia has signaled its willingness to give up influence for a reform that may never materialize. That is a poor bargain. If it does reach the threshold, then the consequences will arrive all at once with no easy exit and no guarantee that the new system will deliver the clarity its advocates promise.
The debate over the Electoral College isn’t going away, but Virginia did not need to volunteer itself as a test case for a sweeping change that diminishes its own role in presidential politics.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.