Proposed Constitutional Amendment Adds 12 National Senators and Changes Electoral College Math

This proposed Joint Resolution seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution, which is a massive undertaking, and it would fundamentally change two of the most powerful institutions in federal government: the Senate and the Electoral College. Essentially, this amendment creates twelve new seats in the Senate and twelve new Electors in the Presidential election, all tied directly to the national popular vote.

The Senate Gets 12 New Seats, Elected Nationally

Right now, the Senate has 100 members—two from each state, regardless of population. This proposal adds twelve "Senators at-large," bringing the total to 112. The kicker? These twelve won’t represent a state; they will be elected by a national popular vote, meaning whoever gets the most votes across the entire country wins one of the seats. These seats would be staggered, with one-third (four seats) up for election every two years, just like the current Senate terms. The first election for these new seats must happen by the second federal general election after the amendment is ratified, according to the text.

This is a huge shift. If you live in a small state, your existing two senators represent a significant amount of political power relative to your population. Adding twelve seats elected by the national popular vote—where the majority of votes come from the most populated areas—could dilute the influence of state-based representation. Think of it this way: your vote for your state senator still matters, but now there are twelve more senators whose priorities will be driven by national trends and population centers, potentially shifting the Senate’s focus away from regional or state-specific issues like agriculture or local infrastructure.

The Electoral College Adds 12 Popular Vote Electors

Beyond the Senate, this amendment takes aim at the presidential election process by adding twelve new "Electors at-large" to the Electoral College. Currently, the number of electors is determined by state representation in Congress. Under this proposal, these twelve new electors must cast their ballots for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who won the national popular vote. This means that even if the existing Electoral College math favored one candidate, the addition of these twelve votes could potentially swing the outcome to the national popular vote winner, ensuring the person who gets the most individual votes nationwide wins the presidency.

However, there’s a major implementation detail left vague: the bill states that Congress will decide how these twelve electors are chosen. This leaves the door open for future legislative battles over the selection process, which could become highly partisan. If Congress retains too much control over who selects these electors, it could lead to procedural wrangling down the line.

Who Gets to Vote and Who Makes the Rules?

One clear benefit of this proposal is that it extends voting rights for these national elections to residents of U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. For the first time, these citizens—who currently lack voting representation in Congress—would be able to cast a vote that directly elects twelve senators and influences the presidential election outcome.

Crucially, the amendment gives Congress the power to write the rules detailing the procedures for these national elections. While states will still handle the actual voting process, Congress gets to set the framework. Giving Congress this broad authority to write the election rules is a point of concern. When one branch of government has the power to set the procedural hurdles for its own election, it raises the possibility that those rules could be designed to favor incumbents or specific political parties, impacting how fair and accessible these new national elections truly are.