US edges closer to popular vote deciding winner of presidential elections ⁠42%

By George Chidi⁠0%

4/14/2026, 5:12:44 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Anecdotal, and Availability Heuristic, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 24.1% saturation with 127 hits. Analysis detected 1,044 faulty-reasoning hits from 527 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠42% (12,875 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.80% of the article peer group.

A national majority vote for president is one step closer to reality after the Virginia governor, Abigail Spanberger, signed the national popular vote bill into law, joining an interstate compact with 17 other states and the District of Columbia. 
Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state. 
The compact takes effect when states representing a majority of electoral votes – 270 of 538 – pass the legislation and thus would determine the winner of the presidential contest. 
With Virginia, the compact now has 222 electors. 
Every state that has so far enacted the compact has Democratic electoral majorities, including California, New York and Illinois. 
But legislation has been introduced in enough states to reach the 270-elector threshold, including swing states like Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 
The legislation relies on two provisions of the US constitution, which would face intense legal scrutiny if and when the compact comes into force. 
Article II, section 1 of the constitution authorizes each state to appoint electors “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct”. 
The constitution does not require states to even have a vote for president, never mind delegating those electors as a state’s voters choose. 
The second provision, article I, section 10, clause 3 of the US constitution, governs interstate compacts. 
The text authorizes states to form legally binding agreements governing their relationships to one another. 
The text requires states to gain the assent of Congress to enact a compact. 
But longstanding US supreme court precedent holds that states only require congressional approval for a compact if the agreement infringes on federal power. 
Supporters of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact argue that the delegation of electors is a state power, not a federal power. 
A Pew Research Center poll from 2024 showed that 63% of Americans would replace the electoral college with a national popular vote for president, with 35% opposing change. 
“We’ll continue our state-by-state work until the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president and every voter is treated equally in every presidential election,” said John Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote, an organization spearheading the legislation. 
Stand Up America, which also advocates for a national popular vote, noted two out of the four US presidents of the 21st century – George W Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 – lost the popular vote and won the White House nonetheless through the electoral college. 
Of the 60 presidential elections in US history, 10 others were near misses in which a small number of votes in a few states could have tipped the electoral college toward the candidate who lost the popular vote. 
“The presidency should be won by the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide – not just the right combination of battleground states,” said Christina Harvey, Stand Up America’s executive director. 
“This brings us one step closer to a system where Americans’ votes for president and vice-president count equally, no matter where they live.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.9%George Chidi: 3.7%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%George Chidi: 4.3%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic14.0%This article: 8.9%George Chidi: 2.1%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic8.9%This article: 7.2%George Chidi: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.9%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%George Chidi: 15.1%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect13.9%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 24.1%George Chidi: 3.7%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias24.1%This article: 4.6%George Chidi: 2.5%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 14.5%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 1.7%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.5%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 2.1%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 1.3%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 1.9%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 5.5%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.4%George Chidi: 3.5%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority22.4%This article: 10.2%George Chidi: 2.0%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma10.2%This article: 7.6%George Chidi: 2.7%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope7.6%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.9%George Chidi: 6.3%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization12.9%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.3%George Chidi: 1.4%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon5.3%This article: 5.9%George Chidi: 9.2%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion5.9%This article: 4.4%George Chidi: 2.5%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question4.4%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 2.6%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.5%George Chidi: 2.6%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal16.5%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.4%George Chidi: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.4%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.6%George Chidi: 1.8%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote7.6%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.7%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.5%George Chidi: 14.8%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice9.5%This article: 5.9%George Chidi: 4.3%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination5.9%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 4.3%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%George Chidi: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

527 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers27%attributed speech384writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Koza • 40 words • 100.0% coverageStand Up America • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageChristina Harvey • 31 words • 100.0% coverageChristina Harvey • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Stand Up America

100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words34% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%Stand Up America: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.