The Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

May 5, 2026 R48936

The Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

May 5, 2026 (R48936)
Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Tables

    Summary

    Individual voters in the United States do not directly elect the President and the Vice President. Instead, their votes select intermediaries, known as electors, to cast votes for a presidential ticket on their behalf. Those electors make up the electoral college, which elects the President and the Vice President. Provisions in Article II and in the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution establish the electoral college.

    The frequently asked questions discussed in this report provide a resource for Members of Congress and congressional staff as they conduct oversight, consider legislation, and address constituent questions related to policy issues concerning the electoral college. The report does not contain legal analysis.

    Some Members of Congress have occasionally proposed constitutional amendments to abolish or alter the electoral college. As of this writing, such proposals have not substantially advanced beyond introduction in recent Congresses.

    Throughout American history, one candidate has almost always won both the popular vote and the electoral college. On four occasions, the electoral college has produced a presidential winner inconsistent with the national popular vote. Currently, to win the presidency or vice presidency, a candidate must receive at least 270 of 538 electoral votes to achieve an electoral college majority. A contingent election would occur if no candidate won a majority in the electoral college. In such an instance, the House of Representatives would elect the President and the Senate would elect the Vice President.

    This report will be updated in the event of substantial legislative activity concerning the electoral college.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is the electoral college?

    The electoral college is the process by which voters known as electors choose the U.S. President and Vice President. The Framers established the electoral college in the U.S. Constitution. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress."1 The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified after a tied 1800 presidential election between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, further specifies, among other provisions, the process by which electors meet and cast their votes.2 The Twelfth Amendment also specifies that the persons receiving the majority of electoral votes for President and Vice President, respectively, shall be elected to those offices.3

    The current electoral college majority is 270 of 538 electoral votes. All states choose electors based on the outcome of the popular election within the state. The tallies of electors' votes are recorded in documents known as certificates of vote.4 Figure 1 below provides two examples of certificates of vote that recorded electors' votes in Maryland and Michigan in 2024.

    Another CRS product discusses the joint session of Congress for counting electoral votes.5

    Figure 1. Sample Certificates of Vote, 2024

    Source: CRS figure from 2024 Maryland and Michigan submissions to the National Archives and Records Administration; see https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2024/vote-maryland.pdf; and https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2024/vote-michigan.pdf.

    Why did the Framers choose the electoral college?

    The development of the electoral college has been the subject of voluminous scholarly study, most of which is beyond the scope of this report.6 In Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton identified two justifications for a presidential-election process that involved both the popular vote and the electoral college. First, he wrote, "the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided" as the presidency. Second, "it was equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of" an informed decision that was best for the country.7 Hamilton also wrote that separating the electoral college from the popular vote—and the electors from each other by avoiding a single college meeting—helped guard against popular passions and selection of a conflicted chief executive.

    What is the role of individual voters in the electoral college?

    Individual voters cast what is known as the popular vote at polling places or via other methods (e.g., mail) on the date of the general election or during early voting periods, which vary by state.8 Those popular votes select electors, who are pledged—and in some states required—to support their party's nominee.

    Who are the electors?

    Under the Constitution, states appoint their electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct."9 The Constitution prohibits Members of Congress or those "holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States" from serving as electors.10 In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits those who, among other criteria, have "engaged in an insurrection or rebellion" from serving as electors, unless a two-thirds vote of each chamber of Congress "remove[s] such disability."11

    In practice, political parties typically play a role in selecting slates of potential electors (who voters select through the popular vote, as noted previously) from among their state or local officeholders or volunteers. As the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has explained, "political parties often choose individuals for the slate to recognize their service and dedication to that political party. They may be State elected officials, State party leaders, or people in the State who have a personal or political affiliation with their party's Presidential candidate."12

    Must electors cast votes consistent with their state popular votes?

    The Constitution and federal law do not address whether electors' votes are bound to particular state-level or party loyalties. Some state laws require electors to vote consistently with the state's popular vote or with the political party that appointed the elector (where applicable). In its 2020 decision in Chiafalo v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Washington State law that imposed a fine on "faithless electors" who vote contrary to the state's popular vote.13

    What numerical majority is required to win the electoral college?

    A numerical majority in the electoral college is currently 270 of 538 votes.14 A contingent election would be triggered by any scenario in which no candidate won a majority in the electoral college.15 These include circumstances in which, for example,

    • two candidates tie in the electoral college;
    • "faithless" electors cast votes depriving any candidate of a majority; or
    • one or more independent or third-party candidates play "spoiler" roles by winning enough electoral votes to deprive any candidate of a majority.

    As discussed in the "What happens if no candidate receives a majority in the electoral college?" section below, the House resolves contingent presidential elections, and the Senate resolves contingent vice-presidential elections.

    How many votes does each state get in the electoral college?

    States receive the same number of electoral votes as they have Representatives and Senators in Congress. Allocation of electoral votes is based on provisions specified in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Article II specifies, in part, that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."16 In addition, as noted below, under the Twenty-Third Amendment, the District of Columbia receives the same number of electoral votes as the least-populous state.17

    For the 2024 and 2028 presidential elections, the number of electoral votes per state ranges from 3 for the least-populous states to 54 for California, as shown in Figure 2 below.

    Figure 2. Electoral College Allocation, 2024 and 2028 Election Cycles

    Source: CRS figure based on based on NARA data, https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/allocation.

    Are voters in the District of Columbia or U.S. territories represented in the electoral college?

    The Twenty-Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors it would have if it were a state, but not more than the least-populous state. As such, the District casts three electoral votes.18 U.S. territories do not participate in the electoral college, and thus their voters do not cast votes in presidential elections.19

    Do all states use a winner-take-all system to allocate electoral college votes?

    No. Forty-eight of the 50 states award all of a state's electoral college votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote. That method is sometimes called the general ticket or winner-take-all system. Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes by counting both the statewide results and the votes per congressional district, such that the state's electoral votes may be geographically divided among two candidates.20 As one scholar has explained, "the ticket receiving the most votes in a congressional district wins that district. The ticket receiving the most votes across the state claims the two 'bonus' electoral votes for that state."21 This method is sometimes called the district system or the congressional district proportional system.22

    How often have different presidential candidates won the electoral college and popular votes?

    Different presidential candidates have won majorities in the popular vote and in the electoral college on four occasions: 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. In addition, no candidate received a majority of electoral votes in 1824.23

    What happens if no candidate receives a majority in the electoral college?

    The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a majority of electoral college votes for a candidate to win the presidency or vice presidency. The current majority is 270 of 538 electoral votes. A contingent election is triggered if no candidate wins a majority.24

    As shown in Figure 3 below, in a contingent election

    • the House of Representatives chooses the President based on a single vote per state delegation (the District of Columbia and U.S. territories are excluded); and
    • the Senate chooses the Vice President (all Senators may vote).

    Figure 3. The Contingent Election Process

    Source: CRS figure based on provisions discussed in the text of this report.

    Notes: For vice-presidential elections in the Senate, because the quorum requirement is two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, it is possible that a majority could be less than 51 Senators, if fewer than 100 Senators were in office.

    What happens if candidates tie in the electoral college?

    A contingent election would occur, as discussed in the "What happens if no candidate receives a majority in the electoral college?" section above.

    Does the electoral college meet at a single location?

    No. The electoral college does not gather in a single location. As NARA has explained, the electoral college "is a process, not a place."25 Electors meet in their states to cast votes.

    When do electors cast their votes?

    Under federal law, electors meet to cast their votes for President and Vice President on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December.26 In 2024, that date was December 17. In 2028, the date is December 19.

    What happens if there are vacancies in the electoral college?

    Under federal law, states determine how to fill vacancies in their electoral college slates.27 The 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA) specifies that such state laws must be "enacted prior to election day."28

    How might the electoral college affect campaigns and voters?

    The electoral college affects and reflects political geography in the United States. The electoral college can incentivize campaigns to focus on heavily populated states with large numbers of electoral votes, on groups of other states (e.g., by region), or both, in an effort to win an electoral majority. That electoral college majority might or might not reflect the national popular vote.

    These incentives for campaigns can affect voters in at least two ways. First, voters in targeted states that campaigns believe to be competitive typically receive more attention from political campaigns, parties, and independent groups in the form of voter-mobilization efforts and political advertising than those in other states.29 Second, even in highly populated states, voters might receive less attention from campaigns if campaigns believe that those states are uncompetitive.30

    Perceptions of particular states being in play or not in the electoral college can be relevant both for individual election cycles and longer time periods. Both Democratic candidates and Republican ones have enjoyed supposedly systemic partisan advantages in the electoral college over time. In the 1970s and 1980s, for example, the conventional wisdom of an "electoral lock," or "electoral college lock," arguably provided a systemic electoral college advantage to the Republican nominee.31 Democrats supposedly enjoyed a systemic electoral college advantage due, in part, to the "blue wall" of states that provided a near-majority in the electoral college on their own during Barack Obama's elections in 2008 and 2012.32

    Electoral college results from one election cycle to the next can indicate shifts in American political culture and "geographic sorting" that have long-term electoral consequences, or they might represent a temporary change based on a single candidate or election cycle.33 In addition, formal or informal theories of electoral college advantage for one party or another are accurate only as long as they reflect election results. Bill Clinton's 1992 success in southern states widely believed to favor Republicans, and Donald Trump's 2016 success in midwestern states widely believed to favor Democrats, are two prominent examples of political campaigns defying electoral college conventional wisdom.34

    Has Congress considered altering the electoral college recently?

    Proposed changes to the electoral college do not appear to have been a major theme in recent hearings or in recent legislation that has advanced substantially beyond introduction. Because the electoral college is specified in constitutional provisions, a constitutional amendment would be required to alter the existing federal process. States could choose to alter the method by which they award electors, such as through amending state law to adopt the Maine and Nebraska systems of awarding votes based on congressional district results.

    Some Members of Congress have occasionally proposed constitutional amendments to abolish or alter the electoral college. As of this writing, such proposals have not substantially advanced beyond introduction in recent Congresses.35 The electoral college is sometimes discussed in hearings concerning other elections topics.36 Congress regularly considered proposals to alter the electoral college from the 1940s through the 1970s, but the topic has faded from substantial legislative activity since that period.37

    Throughout American history, advocates, policymakers, and scholars have considered various alternatives to the electoral college. Those who argue for changing or abandoning the status quo typically highlight two main points. First, they argue that the electoral college is antiquated and undemocratic because it does not provide for direct popular election of the President. Second, critics note that the electoral college winner does not always receive the largest number of popular votes nationwide. By contrast, those who support maintaining the electoral college typically argue that the Framers deliberately chose the existing method to emphasize the roles of states in the American federalist system, and that voters play a central, albeit indirect, role in selecting the President.38

    One alternative to the status quo, the National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative, also known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), is subject to substantial debate and state-level activity that is beyond the scope of this report.39 In brief, under the NPV concept, states would enter into an interstate compact by which member-states would agree to allocate all their electoral votes to the winner of the most number of popular votes nationwide, regardless of outcome in the individual states. Such a method could ensure that the winner of the popular vote nationwide received an electoral college majority, as the compact would only come into effect if a sufficient number of states controlling an electoral college majority agreed to participate. State-level support for the NPV concept has varied over time.40


    This report is informed by the work of former Specialist in American National Government Thomas H. Neale.

    Footnotes

    1.

    U.S. Constitution, Art. II, §1.
    2.

    U.S. Constitution, Amdt XII. After the electoral college tie in 1800 between Burr and Jefferson, the House of Representatives selected Jefferson as President and Burr as Vice President—a decision that required several days and 36 ballots in the House. For an overview, see, for example, John Ferling, "Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr and the Election of 1800," Smithsonian Magazine, November 1, 2004, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/thomas-jefferson-aaron-burr-and-the-election-of-1800-131082359/. That 1800 result followed another politically unworkable result during the preparty era. In 1796, two other political rivals, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, were elected President and Vice President, respectively, when they finished first and second under the original electoral college system. On individual election results, see National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), "Electoral College Results," https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/results.
    3.

    U.S. Constitution, Amdt XII.
    4.

    On certificates of vote, see 3 U.S.C. §9.
    5.

    CRS Report R48309, Joint Session of Congress for Counting Electoral Votes for President, by Elizabeth Rybicki, L. Paige Whitaker, and R. Sam Garrett.

    6.

    A few selected examples include Robert M. Alexander, Representation and the Electoral College (Oxford University Press, 2019); Clinton Rossiter, 1787: The Grand Convention (Macmillan, 1966); and Lucius Wilmerding, Jr., The Electoral College (Rutgers University Press, 1958).
    7.

    Alexander Hamilton, "Federalist No. 68," in Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist, Benjamin F. Wright, ed. (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1966), p. 441.
    8.

    For additional discussion, see, for example, CRS Report R46565, Federal Election Results: Frequently Asked Questions, by Sarah J. Eckman, R. Sam Garrett, and Karen L. Shanton.
    9.

    U.S. Constitution, Art. II, §1.
    10.

    U.S. Constitution, Art. II, §1.
    11.

    U.S. Constitution, Amdt. XIV, §3.
    12.

    NARA, "About the Electors," https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#qualifications.
    13.

    Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. 578, 597 (2020). See also CRS, Constitution Annotated, "ArtII.S1.C2.5 Discretion of Electors to Choose a President,"
    14.

    See, for example, NARA, "2024 Electoral College Results," https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2024. See also "Majority Required for Election" in CRS Report R48309, Joint Session of Congress for Counting Electoral Votes for President, by Elizabeth Rybicki, L. Paige Whitaker, and R. Sam Garrett, p. 12.
    15.

    In 1824, no candidate received an electoral college majority, which led to a contingent election in the House. John Quincy Adams was the ultimate winner. In addition, after the 1836 election, a contingent election was required in the Senate to select the Vice President after presidential winner Martin Van Buren's running mate, Richard Mentor Johnson, fell short of an electoral college majority. The Senate chose Johnson as Vice President in the contingent election. For brief overviews, see, for example, Margaret A. Hogan, "John Quincy Adams: Campaigns and Elections," University of Virginia Miller Center, https://millercenter.org/president/jqadams/campaigns-and-elections; and "Richard M. Johnson (1837-1841)," University of Virginia Miller Center, https://millercenter.org/president/vanburen/essays/johnson-1837-vicepresident. See also CRS report CRS Report R40504, Contingent Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Perspectives and Contemporary Analysis, coordinated by R. Sam Garrett, originally authored by Thomas H. Neale.

    16.

    U.S. Constitution, Art. II, §1.
    17.

    U.S. Constitution, Amdt. XXIII, §1.
    18.

    U.S. Constitution, Amdt. XXIII, §1.
    19.

    Permanently inhabited U.S. territories include American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Voters in territories may and do participate in national party conventions to nominate candidates. Territories also typically hold presidential caucuses, conventions, or primaries before candidate nomination.
    20.

    In 2016, for example, the Democratic ticket of Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine won 3 of Maine's electoral votes, while the Republican ticket of Donald Trump and Mike Pence won 1 Maine electoral vote. Specifically, the Democratic ticket won the statewide popular vote and the popular vote in the First Congressional District, which yielded a total of 3 votes. The Republican ticket won the Second Congressional District, which yielded 1 electoral vote. Maine thus cast 3 votes for the Democratic ticket and 1 for the Republican ticket. See, for example, Maine Certificate of Vote, 2016, submitted to NARA, https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2016/vote-maine.pdf. For additional discussion of the electoral college and campaigning implications in Maine and Nebraska, see, for example, J. Miles Coleman, "The Electoral College: Maine and Nebraska's Crucial Battleground Votes," University of Virginia, The Center for Politics, January 9, 2020, https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/the-electoral-college-maine-and-nebraskas-crucial-battleground-votes/; and Elizabeth Rembert, "Nebraska and Maine split their electoral vote. Is it a better system than winner-take-all?," Nebraska Public Media, April 3, 2024, https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/nebraska-and-maine-split-their-electoral-vote-is-it-a-better-system-than-winner-take-all/.
    21.

    Robert M. Alexander, Representation and the Electoral College (Oxford University Press, 2019), p. 6.
    22.

    See, for example, Vincy Fon, "Integral Proportional System: Aligning Electoral Votes More Closely with State Popular Votes," Supreme Court Economic Review, vol. 16, no. 1 (2008), pp. 131-132.

    23.

    On individual election results, see NARA, "Electoral College Results," https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/results. For a brief overview of the 1824 election, see, for example Margaret A. Hogan, "John Quincy Adams: Campaigns and Elections," University of Virginia Miller Center, https://millercenter.org/president/jqadams/campaigns-and-elections.
    24.

    For additional historical discussion, see CRS Report R40504, Contingent Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Perspectives and Contemporary Analysis, coordinated by R. Sam Garrett, originally authored by Thomas H. Neale.
    25.

    NARA, "Electoral College," https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/about.
    26.

    3 U.S.C. §7.
    27.

    3 U.S.C. §4.

    28.

    3 U.S.C. §4. As enacted, see P.L. 117-328, 136 Stat. 5234.
    29.

    For an overview of some of the foundational literature on targeting as it relates to targeting and the electoral college, see, for example, Daron R. Shaw, "The Methods Behind the Madness: Presidential Electoral College Strategies, 1988-1996," The Journal of Politics, vol. 61, no. 4 (1999), pp. 893-913. For an overview of voter-targeting generally, see Alicia Kolar Prevost, "Field Organizing in Political Campaigns," in Campaigns and Elections American Style: The Changing Landscape of American Politics, 6th ed., ed. Candice J. Nelson et al., (Routledge, 2024), pp. 322-343.

    30.

    See, for example, Scott D. McClurg and Thomas M. Holbrook, "Living in a Battleground: Presidential Campaigns and Fundamental Predictors of Vote Choice," Political Research Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 3 (2009), pp. 495-506.
    31.

    The "electoral lock" concept is reportedly attributed to Horace Busby, a former Lyndon Johnson aide, based on a 1958 conversation with Johnson concerning what Johnson feared would be Republican dominance in the South in the coming decades. See R. W. Apple, Jr., "Where Bush Appears as Solid as the Rockies," The New York Times, October 23, 1988, https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/23/us/state-by-state-where-bush-appears-as-solid-as-the-rockies.html; and I.M. Destler, "The Myth of the 'Electoral Lock,'" PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 29, no. 3 (1996), pp. 491-494.

    32.

    The "blue wall" analogy is typically attributed to author Ronald Brownstein. See Ronald Brownstein, "Dems Find Electoral Safety Behind a Wall of Blue," National Journal, January 17, 2009 (retrieved via LexisNexis). For a more recent analysis of the blue wall assessment, see, for example, Chris Stirewalt, "A Red Wall to Match the Blue," The Dispatch, September 24, 2024, https://thedispatch.com/article/a-red-wall-to-match-the-blue/. See also David A. Dulio et al., "What Happened to the 'Blue Wall'? The Partisan Makeup of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, 1992-2024," paper prepared for the State of the Parties: 2024 and Beyond conference, Akron, OH, November 6, 2025.
    33.

    In this context, "geographic sorting" refers to like-minded voters living together, sometimes as a result of moving to politically homogenous communities. See, for example Bill Bishop with Robert Cushing, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded Americans is Tearing Us Apart (Houghton Mifflin, 2008); and Thomas M. Holbrook, Altered States: Changing Populations, Changing Parties, and the Transformation of the American Political Landscape (Oxford University Press, 2016).
    34.

    Scholarship on supposed partisan bias in the electoral college shows mixed results. See, for example, I.M. Destler, "The Myth of the 'Electoral Lock,'" PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 29, no. 3 (1996), pp. 491-494; Daron R. Shaw, "The Methods Behind the Madness: Presidential Electoral College Strategies, 1988-1996," The Journal of Politics, vol. 61, no. 4 (1999), pp. 893-913; Philip J. Ardoin and Bryan M. Parsons, "Partisan Bias in the Electoral College: Cheap States and Wasted Votes," Politics & Policy, vol. 35, no. 2 (2007), pp. 342-364; and Thomas M. Holbrook, Altered States: Changing Populations, Changing Parties, and the Transformation of the American Political Landscape (Oxford University Press, 2016).
    35.

    On proposed amendments to abolish or otherwise alter the electoral college in favor of direct popular election, see, for example, H.J.Res. 102 (Casten, 119th Congress); H.J.Res. 227 (Cohen, 118th Congress); and S.J.Res. 121 (Schatz, 118th Congress).

    36.

    See, for example, occasional discussion of the electoral college in U.S. Congress, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, The Electoral Count Act: The Need for Reform, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., August 3, 2022, S. Hrg. 117-332 (GPO, 2022).
    37.

    See, for example, Warren Weaver, Jr., "Move is Begun in Senate to Replace Electoral College with Direct Vote," New York Times, January 28, 1977, p. A10. See also Neil R. Peirce and Lawrence D. Longley, The People's President: The Electoral College in American History and the Direct Vote Alternative, revised ed. (Yale University Press, 1981). See also U.S. Congress, Senate Judiciary Committee, Constitution Subcommittee, The Electoral College and Direct Election, hearings on S.J.Res. 1, S.J.Res. 8, and S.J.Res. 18, 95th Cong., 1st sess., July 20, 22, 28, and August 2, 1977, Supplement (GPO, 1977).
    38.

    For overviews of arguments for and against the electoral college, see, for example, Choosing a President: The Electoral College and Beyond, ed. Paul D. Schumaker and Burdett A. Loomis (Seven Bridges Press, 2002); Judith Best, The Case Against Direct Election of the President: A Defense of the Electoral College (Cornell University Press, 1971); Allen Guelzo, "In Defense of the Electoral College," National Affairs (Winter 2018), https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college; and Darrell M. West, It's Time to Abolish the Electoral College, Brookings Institution, October 15, 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-time-to-abolish-the-electoral-college/.
    39.

    See, for example, archived CRS Report R43823, The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact, by Thomas H. Neale and Andrew Nolan; and a symposium on the NPV in volume 7, issue 3 (September 2008) of the Election Law Journal. Other alternatives include, for example, the perfect proportion system and the integral proportion system. See, for example, Vincy Fon, "Electoral College Alternatives and US Presidential Elections," Supreme Court Economic Review, vol. 12 (2004), pp. 41-73.
    40.

    For recent status, see, for example, National Conference of State Legislatures, "National Popular Vote," https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/national-popular-vote.