"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

    29. Myth about Unequal Treatment of Voters in Member and Non-Member States

    29.1  MYTH: Voters in states that haven’t signed onto the compact will be treated differently than voters in states that have.

    QUICK ANSWER:

  • The National Popular Vote compact does not treat voters in non-member states differently than voters in member states.
  • MORE DETAILED ANSWER:

    U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R–Kentucky) has stated that the National Popular Vote compact:

    “violates the equal protection of voters. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, ensures that every voter is treated equally. Yet under NPV, voters in states that haven’t signed onto the compact will be treated differently than voters in states that have.” [550] [Emphasis added]

    The National Popular Vote compact would not treat voters in non-member states differently than voters in member states.

    Voters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would be treated equally by the National Popular Vote compact—regardless of whether their state belongs to the compact. The first clause of Article III of the compact provides:

    “… the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a ‘national popular vote total’ for each presidential slate.” [Emphasis added]

    The popular-vote counts from all 50 states and the District of Columbia are included in the “national popular vote total” regardless of whether the jurisdiction is a member of the compact. That is, the compact counts the popular votes from member states on equal footing with those from non-member states. Votes from all states and the District of Columbia are treated equally in calculating the “national popular vote total.”

    Although the National Popular Vote compact would treat all voters equally, it should be noted that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to interstate matters. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment reads:

    “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [Emphasis added]

    As Jennings Wilson observed:

    There is no legal precedent for inter-state equal protection claims. Successful equal protection claims have always been brought by citizens being disadvantaged vis-Γ -vis other citizens of their own state.” [551] [Emphasis added]

    The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment restricts a particular state in the manner in which it treats persons “within its jurisdiction.” The Equal Protection Clause imposes no obligation on a given state concerning a “person” in another state who is not “within its [the first state’s] jurisdiction.”

    On the other hand, the current state-by-state winner-take-all system treats voters unequally in several ways:

  • Four out of five voters are ignored by presidential campaigns (as discussed in section 1.2.1);
  • The current system does not reliably reflect the nationwide popular vote (as discussed in section 1.2.2); and
  • Every vote is not equal under the current system (as discussed in section 1.2.3).

  • 550 McConnell, Mitch. The Electoral College and National Popular Vote Plan. December 7, 2011. Washington, DC.

    551 Wilson, Jennings Jay. 2006. Bloc voting in the Electoral College: How the ignored states can become relevant and implement popular election along the way. 5 Election Law Journal 384 at 387.

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