> So we'd be electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. No. The 2000 & 2016 elections—along with 3 others since 1824—saw a person elect

> So we'd be electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. No. The 2000 & 2016 elections—along with 3 others since 1824—saw a person elected despite the majority of voters who cast ballots voting against that individual—52% voted against Bush, 54% voted against Trump. Both elections saw the US electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. The compact is essentially an agreement to make presidential elections match up with the person who secures the most votes nationwide, which sure seems to be far closer to a democratic election than the indirect EC system which has, twice in recent memory, awarded the presidency against the wishes of the majority of voters who cast votes. No more playing the EC game—you either win the election with the most votes cast, or you don't win. The only other options would be far heavier overhauls of the voting system—ditching SMDP, and implementing a two-round system whereby we eventually end up with one person who gets >50% of the vote. That's unlikely to ever happen, as it would rely on a constitutional amendment, so the compact is leveraging the power states have to determine how they award their electoral votes—awarding them based on who secures the most votes nationwide so the elected president always matches the popular vote. Again, since US national elections already rely on getting the most votes, and not a true >50% majority of votes cast, this is likely the closest the US can get to a purely democratic presidential election without an amendment that removes the EC entirely and establishes a TRS election in its place to ensure there is always an undeniable majority winner.