Another problem with this scheme will occur when each State in the compact “decides” who won. For example - 2016 Cruz beats HRC by 50 000 votes. California and NY announce they won’t recognize Texas returns because of voter suppression, and appoint electors to vote for HRC.
Another reason the “popular vote” tally is a fallacy.
In many states,
if the number of absentee, military, overseas, or whatever other provisional ballots
that are on hand at the end of the election are not enough in number to make a difference
in the outcome of the race, then they are never even counted in the first place.
I still find it amazing that a state legislature would basically say:
“no matter how the people of this state vote,
we are going to ignore that, and we will direct our electors
to vote according to how someone else voted.”
Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Existing federal law (the “safe harbor” provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state’s “final determination” of its presidential election returns is “conclusive”(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.