Under the current system, a President could be elected by a minority of the vote, but with a majority of the electoral votes. NPV would eliminate that, and in doing so, seriously undermine the concept of the confederation of states which, geographically and culturally, help make this country what it is.
Ultimately, NPV helps make majority tyranny easier, and as such all Americans should be opposed to it, on general principle.
How many of you would like to be ruled over by the liberal-soaked states such as New York, California, and Massachusetts? Under the NPV scenario, vast majorities in states like that could vote, say, 90%-10% for some "bocialist" candidate, while in the 45 or so remaining states, there could be a closer race, and yet, because of the lopsided majorities in the "liberal" states, the whole middle of the country would be ruled over by the "bocialists".
NO THANKS.
Under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just the 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
Off the top of my head, there have been four presidential elections where the victor did not receive the majority of the popular vote. That’s four out of forty-four. So one question you have to answer is: if the winner of a popular vote constitutes some kind of anti-republican mob rule, haven’t we been living under such mob rule for forty out of forty-four presidents? Is it “mob rule” when the popular vote elects your governor or your congressmen?