"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors ..." -- U.S. Constitution
Ask your legislators to pass National Popular Vote

ZIP:
Endorsed by 2,110
State Legislators
In addition to 1,129 state legislative sponsors (shown above), 981 other legislators have cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.
Progress by State

Tom Golisano

Entrepreneur Tom Golisano Endorses National Popular Vote

Short Explanation
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee a majority of the Electoral College to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would reform the Electoral College so that the electoral vote in the Electoral College reflects the choice of the nation's voters for President of the United States.   more
11 Enactments
The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted into law in states possessing 165 electoral votes — 61% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the legislation.

  • Maryland - 10 votes
  • Massachusetts - 11
  • Washington - 12 votes
  • Vermont - 3 votes
  • Rhode Island - 4 votes
  • DC - 3 votes
  • Hawaii - 4 votes
  • New Jersey - 14 votes
  • Illinois - 20 votes
  • New York - 29 votes
  • California - 55 votes

  • Videos

    Fox Interview

    CBS Video

    Popular Vote

    Class Election

    more videos

    Advisory Board
    John Anderson (R-I–IL)
    Birch Bayh (D–IN)
    John Buchanan (R–AL)
    Tom Campbell (R–CA)
    Tom Downey (D–NY)
    D. Durenberger (R–MN)
    Jake Garn (R–UT)
    What Do You Think
    How should we elect the President?
    The candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states.
    The current Electoral College system.

    Add this poll to your web site

    21. Myth about a Federal Election Bureaucracy

    21.1  MYTH: A federal election bureaucracy would be created by the National Popular Vote compact.

    QUICK ANSWER:

  • The National Popular Vote compact would not create any bureaucracy—much less a federal election bureaucracy appointed by the sitting President.
  • Implementation of the National Popular Vote compact would not necessitate the creation of any new bureaucracy. It would involve adding up the popular vote totals that are already being routinely tabulated by existing state officials under existing laws and procedures.
  • MORE DETAILED ANSWER:

    A brochure published by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation of Olympia, Washington, suggests that the National Popular Vote plan would result in:

    nationalizing election administration, potentially putting presidential appointees in charge of presidential elections.”[481] [Emphasis added]

    Trent England (a lobbyist opposing the National Popular Vote compact and Vice-President of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation of Olympia, Washington) has written:

    “Because of the Electoral College, the United States has no national election bureaucracy—no presidential appointee in charge of presidential elections.” [482] [Emphasis added]

    Professor Robert Hardaway of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law repeated this theme in his testimony on February 19, 2010, to the Alaska Senate Judiciary Committee:

    “Under the Koza scheme, who would be the national official who would decide what the popular vote is? And what would happen if a state officer decides that the popular vote tally is one figure, and someone from the federal government, like the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Quarterly, [483] decides that it's something else?”

    Gary Gregg II, a strong supporter of the current system of electing the President and editor of a book defending the current system, says:

    “Will we have to create and pay for a new federal agency to verify the accuracy of popular vote totals? Probably.” [484]

    The National Popular Vote compact provides for the adding up of the vote totals for President from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. These vote totals are election results that are already created by, and certified by, state election officials under existing laws and procedures.

    These state-level vote totals would be generated by each state in exactly the same manner as they are today. Each state’s vote totals would be officially recorded in a “Certificate of Ascertainment” [485]—just as they are today. Each state’s results would then be reported to Congress as required under the 12th Amendment—just as they are today.

    The National Popular Vote compact would not create (or necessitate) any bureaucracy—much less a federal bureaucracy.

    The states would continue to control elections, as provided by the U.S. Constitution—just as they do today.

    The states would continue to reach a “final determination” as to the popular vote count in their state—just as they do today. Section 6 of Title 3 of the United States Code specifies:

    “It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are required by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State.…” [Emphasis added]


    482 England, Trent. Op-Ed: Bypass the Electoral College? Christian Science Monitor. August 12, 2010.

    483 Note that the Congressional Budget Office has nothing to do with elections, and that the Congressional Quarterly is a private publishing corporation.

    484 Gregg, Gary. Keep Electoral College for fair presidential votes. Politico. December 5, 2012.

    485 Appendices E, F, G, H, and I show examples of certificates of ascertainment from Minnesota, Maine, Nebraska, New York, and Mississippi. Figure 6.1 shows Vermont’s 2008 Certificate of Ascertainment. Figure 9.5 shows Oregon’s 2012 Certificate of Ascertainment. The Certificates of Ascertainment from all 50 states and the District of Columbia are available online for the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections. For the 2004 presidential election, see http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/certificates_of_ascertainment.html.

    Reform the Electoral College so that the electoral vote reflects the nationwide popular vote for President