"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
    York Daily Record Editorials





    Our take: Electoral change might backfire
    March 7, 2013

    Republican state lawmakers have a new plan to award the state′s presidential electoral votes proportionally.

    You′ve heard the old cliché: be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

    Republican Pennsylvania lawmakers might want to keep that in mind as they continue their relentless, thus far quixotic, efforts to game the state′s electoral system to "help" GOP presidential candidates.

    First came the ham-fisted and horribly implemented Voter ID rule, designed to deliver the state to Mitt Romney (as a Pennsylvania House leader was caught on video admitting).

    Next was the proposal to award the state′s electoral votes by congressional district — as opposed to the winner-take-all method that Pennsylvania and the vast majority of other states currently have in place.

    If that had been in place in the last presidential election, Mitt Romney would have "won" Pennsylvania, gaining more electoral votes than President Obama — despite the fact that Mr. Obama had a solid majority of the statewide vote. That′s because Republicans have done a very effective job of gerrymandering congressional districts in the state.

    Now comes a "new and improved" electoral proposal from state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi. Under Sen. Pileggi′s new plan, the electoral votes would be awarded proportionally according to the statewide vote. Eighteen of those electoral votes would be awarded proportionally, with two more awarded to the statewide winner.

    That′s a little bit better than the previous plan. The "loser" of the statewide vote couldn′t win the state under such a scenario.

    But what is the virtue of this idea?

    It basically takes Pennsylvania off the table as a national player in the presidential election.

    Rather than get the attention of candidates as a nominal "swing state," a prized big-state electoral cache, it will be ignored by candidates. It would always be a virtual wash for the major party candidates.

    It seems Republicans think that if they can get at least a handful of electoral votes out of Pennsylvania, that would be a win for the party candidate.

    Perhaps.

    Or perhaps this system could lead to a narrow presidential loss for some future GOP presidential candidate. Instead of getting all of the Keystone state′s electoral votes, that candidate would get just a share — and that could be the difference between winning and losing a national election.

    If the motive for changing the system is to better reflect the will of the entire Pennsylvania electorate, there′s a much better way to accomplish that: Sign on to the National Popular Vote initiative.

    Here′s how it works: Enabling legislation is passed in states promising to award all of that state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. That change is put on hold until states with 270 electoral votes — enough to win the presidency — pass the enabling legislation.

    No constitutional amendment is needed.

    There′s no need to expel the Electoral College.

    So far, that legislation has been passed by states with 132 electoral votes.

    Once the initiative becomes active, we can be assured that the winner of the national popular vote will win the election — and that everyone′s vote for president counts, whether they live in the cities or out in the countryside. Whether they live in Texas, a "red" state, Massachusetts, a "blue" state, or Pennsylvania, a "purple" state. Most people — conservative or liberal — can agree that the person who gets the most votes nationwide should be president.

    Passing National Popular Vote legislation would be a much more productive effort on the part of Sen. Pileggi and his GOP colleagues.

    And much less likely to backfire on them later.





    Our take: National popular vote bill provides a better way to elect a president
    December 17, 2012

    Joe Sterns, a Republican who has worked for a variety of political figures and organizations, recently spoke at a York 912 Patriots tea party group meeting promoting a terrible idea.

    He called for changing the Electoral College system in Pennsylvania so that presidential votes would be awarded by congressional district rather than the statewide popular vote winner-take-all system now in place.

    "It's no longer the case, so much, that California and New York are picking our president," he said. "It's that it's Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City and Philadelphia - that's who's picking our president."

    Well, that stands to reason, because that's where the most people live — in large cities and their surrounding suburbs.

    But Mr. Sterns doesn't like that because that's where he says most of the moochers of society live.

    But what would have happened in Pennsylvania this year if electoral votes had been awarded by congressional district?

    Mitt Romney would have "won" the state because there are more Republican congressional districts — thanks largely to some pretty shameless gerrymandering by the GOP.

    But Barack Obama won a fairly commanding victory in Pennsylvania's popular vote.

    How would giving Mr. Romney more electoral votes than the person who won the popular vote carry out the will of the people?

    That said, it's easy to understand the frustration of, say, conservative voters in the 4th District who voted for Mr. Romney. Their votes are essentially discounted nationally because President Obama won the statewide popular vote.

    But there's a better way to rectify that problem — assuring that everyone's presidential vote "counts."

    It's called the National Popular Vote initiative.

    Here's how it works: Enabling legislation is passed in states promising to award all of that state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. That change is put on hold until states with 270 electoral votes — enough to win the presidency — pass the enabling legislation.

    No constitutional amendment needed.

    No need to expel the Electoral College.

    So far, that legislation has been passed by states with 132 electoral votes.

    Once the initiative becomes active, we can be assured that the winner of the national popular vote will win the election — and that everyone's vote for president counts, whether they live in the cities or out in the countryside.

    That seems far preferable to awarding electoral votes by gerrymandered congressional districts.



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