"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

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
    Hartford Courant Editorials

    State Should Embrace 'National Popular Vote' For President
    March 11, 2013

    It′s time that the General Assembly pass "national popular vote" legislation, adding Connecticut to the growing list of states that have signed up for this equitable and sensible way of electing a president. It would be good for Connecticut.

    The national popular vote bill passed the state House in 2010 but was not taken up by the Senate. Introduced again this year, the measure had a seven-hour public hearing last month and is now being considered by the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

    Under the current winner-take-all system, presidential candidates and their campaign money gravitate to the 12 to 15 competitive battleground states that have the storehouses of electoral votes it takes to make a winner.

    An added benefit for the battleground states: They attract the attention of the winning candidate after the election as well as before.

    The rest of the states, including Connecticut in recent years, are little more than bystanders during the campaign and often after.

    The candidate with the most support does not always win the election. Four times in our history, and as recently as 2000, a candidate has won the presidency while losing the popular vote. It almost happened again in 2004.

    There is a simple constitutional way to change the system: Through legislative action, states can join a compact in which each agrees to give its electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

    Candidates are more likely to barnstorm the country rather than concentrating on the battleground states. What could be more American than the candidate with the most votes winning?

    The legislature should pass this bill and the governor should sign it.

    Also recommended: The Government Administration and Elections Committee advanced a proposed state constitutional amendment this past week that — if approved by both legislative chambers this year and a simple majority of voters at the 2014 general election — would allow the legislature to enact forms of early voting.

    Early voting will encourage greater turnout and cut down on long lines and crowded polling places. Pass this one too, lawmakers.

    For National Popular Vote
    March 2, 2008

    Connecticut, to everyone's surprise, was in play during the Super Tuesday primaries. Three major candidates visited the state.

    But that may not happen in the run-up to the November general election (minus a quick fundraising visit or two to Fairfield County). If, say, the state is considered safe for the Democrats, neither candidate will feel the need to campaign here. The same thing is likely to happen in two-thirds of the other states.

    Our system of electing the president and vice president is flawed and archaic. There is a way to change it without amending the U.S. Constitution. The states can simply agree to give their electoral votes — regardless of who wins each state's popular vote — to the winner of the national popular vote. There is a serious proposal to adopt the "National Popular Vote" plan here and across the country. It's worth supporting.

    Connecticut Often Ignored

    The problem with the present system is the winner-take-all rule used in 48 states. In all states except Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the state's popular vote gets all of the state's electoral votes.

    So if a candidate is assured of winning, say, 55 percent of the popular vote, the campaign is over. He or she will get all the electoral votes, and there's no point in trying to get more votes, nor is there any point in the losing candidate losing by fewer votes. Although it's possible that the losing candidate could try to reverse the numbers, what almost always happens is that both candidates put their money and time into battleground states.

    According to the FairVote organization, 99 percent of the campaign advertising money in the 2004 presidential election was spent in just 17 states, and 92 percent of the campaign visits were in only 16 states. Issues in those states are thrust to the fore, at the expense of whatever Connecticut and other less-noticed states are concerned about. Federal grants tend to find their way to contested states, especially as elections near.

    The way we elect presidents now thwarts the democratic principle of majority rule. Four times in our nation's history, most recently in 2000, a president has won the office while losing the popular vote. It almost happened in a number of other elections. A shift of only 60,000 votes in Ohio would have given the 2004 election to John Kerry, despite President George W. Bush's 3.5 million-vote lead in the popular tally.

    Also, the lack of a meaningful campaign depresses voter turnout, which in turn makes things worse for the minority party.

    Reformers have been trying to scuttle the Electoral College system for at least 50 years. Twice in the 1970s, a proposed constitutional amendment passed one house of Congress, only to be blocked by beneficiaries of the current system. It is difficult, as it should be, to amend the U.S. Constitution. But because states have the power to allocate their electoral votes, some clever folks have come up with another way around the block.

    Change How States Use Votes

    The National Popular Vote creates a compact. All of the states that join agree to give their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact only kicks in when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes β€” 270 of 538, enough to elect a president.

    The bill has passed in two states, Maryland and New Jersey, and is in the pipeline in more than 40 other states, including Connecticut. The bill, which failed to pass last year, has been introduced again, and backers say it has a better chance of passage this year.

    Support is not universal. Critics such as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who vetoed the bill after it passed both houses in the California legislature, object to the possibility that a state could give its electoral votes to a candidate it didn't support.

    Others in favor of the devil-we-got say the new method could increase the cost of elections and focus campaigning on population centers at the expense of rural areas.

    Those points are well-taken, but the positives of National Popular Vote outweigh the negatives. There are no other indirect elections left in government; they are a relic of the past. The Electoral College was supposed to help small-population states (and Southern states where slaves couldn't vote), but most small-population states aren't in play on Election Day. That the 2000 election was hanging on hanging chads was absurd.

    If a million votes in Connecticut count as much as a million votes in Ohio, we'll see the candidates again. National Popular Vote is worth a try.

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