"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
    Westport News and FairField Citizen News
    Initiative to Scrap Electoral College Gains Steam
    April 6, 2007

    How strange is it that the world's greatest democracy doesn't elect its leader by popular vote?

    Bizarre but true nonetheless. The American people don't decide who their leader is, the Electoral College does. And this is not a purely intellectual matter. Four times since the birth of our country, the candidate with the most popular votes was not "elected" president, the most recent example occurring in 2000.

    It's an absurdity in this day and age.

    In recent years, there has been much talk of scrapping the Electoral College and many of us have come to view it as antediluvian.

    On April 2, Maryland's House of Delegates passed the National Popular Vote initiative by a vote of 85 to 54. The State Senate had previously passed the same legislation by a vote of 29 to 17. The bill moves next to Gov. Martin O'Malley who has indicated that he will sign it.

    The senates in Colorado and Hawaii have reportedly passed the bill as has the Arkansas House. The California Assembly and Senate passed the plan last year but it was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenneger.

    Under the terms of the bill, all of Maryland's electors would vote for the presidential candidate that garners the most popular votes. The terms of the National Popular

    Vote only take effect when it is enacted by enough states to create a 270-vote majority in the Electoral College.

    According to National Popular Vote, www.nationalpopularvote.com, the bill already has 284 sponsors in 47 states for 2007 state legislative sessions. FairVote, www.fairvote.org, is another group supporting the initiative.

    In Connecticut, a number of proposed bills have surfaced. State Rep. Tom Drew of Fairfield (D-132), a member of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, introduced one such bill.

    "The current Electoral College system doesn't serve us any longer," said Drew. "It's an old idea whose utility has past and, frankly, it creates a distorted election." Drew said he'd much rather see a vigorous debate on the issues in front of the whole country than a campaign blitz on a few key districts.

    Indeed, one of the benefits of the plan would be to force candidates to campaign nationwide and not focus on battleground states. It makes sense, all states are purple after all, not red or blue, and most of us are sick to death of partisan politics.

    Critics of the plan point to the potential chaos of a national recount. However, it's hard to imagine much more chaos than we experienced in the wake of the 2000 presidential election.

    Drew told the Westport News that he would prefer to see the Electoral College abolished by an amendment to the Constitution. That could prove difficult, however, because three-quarters of the states would have to ratify the amendment and it is widely thought that less populous states won't be inclined to ratify it because they benefit from the way the electors in the Electoral College are apportioned. In effect, they get greater representation in the Electoral College than they would in a popular vote.

    "I like the idea of having both initiatives, which are related, go forth simultaneously, said Drew. "It's entirely legitimate to pursue through both channels."

    We agree with Drew. A Constitutional amendment would be preferable to bypassing the U.S. Constitution by state compact, even if the compact could make it by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, there is nothing wrong with pursuing both initiatives simultaneously.


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