"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

    What About the Small States?

    The least populous states are disadvantaged by the winner-take-all rule to a considerably greater degree than the larger ones. Overall, voters are effectively disenfranchised in two thirds of the states in presidential elections. Because small states are apt to be one-party states, 12 of the 13 (92%) least populous states are non-competitive in presidential elections. Non-competitive states—with or without a bonus of two extra electoral votes—simply do not matter in presidential politics.

    As part of the political compromise that led to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers intended to confer a certain amount of extra influence on the less populous states by giving every state a bonus of two electoral votes corresponding to its two U.S. Senators. The 13 smallest states (i.e., those with three and four electoral votes) represents about 4% of the population of the United States, but have about 8% of the electoral votes. However, the Founders' intent to give a certain amount of extra influence to the small states has not been achieved because the political effect of the two-vote bonus has been trumped by the nearly universal adoption by the states of the winner-take-all rule.

    The 13 smallest states have a combined population of 11,448,957. Coincidentally, Ohio has almost the same population (11,353,140) as the 13 smallest states combined. Excluding the one competitive small state (New Hampshire) from consideration, the Constitution gives 40 electoral votes to the 12 non-competitive small states (16 electoral votes warranted by population and 24 bonus electoral votes). The Constitution gives Ohio only 20 electoral votes—half as many as the 12 non-competitive small states. If it were true that the two-vote bonus enhanced the influence of small states, the 12 small states should exert considerably more influence than Ohio in presidential elections. This is not, of course, the case. The battleground state of Ohio (with its "mere" 20 electoral votes) is very important in presidential elections, whereas the 12 non-competitive small states (with their hefty caches of 40 electoral votes) are irrelevant.

    In short, the two-vote bonus established by the Constitution to enhance the influence of the small states exists today in form; however, the nearly unanimous use by the states of the winner-take-all rule robs these bonus electoral votes of any political substance. The argument that the Electoral College confers an enormous amount of influence on the small states is a superficially plausible and arithmetically correct argument that simply does not reflect political reality.

    For more details, see section 1.4 of the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote.

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