Because each state has independent power to award its electoral votes in the manner it sees fit, it is difficult to see what “adverse effect” might be claimed by one state from the decision of another state to award its electoral votes in a particular way. It is especially unclear what adverse “political” effect might be claimed, given that the National Popular Vote compact would treat votes cast in all 50 states and the District of Columbia equally. A vote cast in a compacting state is, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact does not confer any advantage on states belonging to the compact as compared to non-compacting states. A vote cast in a compacting state would be, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact certainly would not reduce the voice of voters in non-compacting states relative to the voice of voters in member states.
R U on drugz? Man, the 1960's musta been very, very good to you ...
Let us assume that, say 12 states totally 270 electoral votes participate in the NPV. 39 state do not [have to include DC].
Let us further assume that there is an even split of the EVs in an election, 135-135.
Let us further assume that the remaining 268 EVs split 140-128.
That would NORMALLY lead to a 275-263 electoral winner.
HOWEVER, if the candidate [who woulda gotten the 275 EVs] DID NOT win the national popular vote, the EVs of the 38 states that DID NOT participate in the NPV are essentially WORTHLESS.
That is because the 135-135 EV spit would become 270-0, giving the OTHER candidate the victory.
The political power of the majority of states that voted for the NPV loser AND DID NOT participate in the NPV [140 EVs] CERTAINLY is diminished ...