As Connecticut and the country begin to prepare for the 2012 election, we should question the way we elect a president. The discussion is taking place at the Capitol in Hartford, and I hope for passage of the National Popular Vote bill here.

Our system now is full of flaws. It enables a candidate to win the White House without getting the most votes from Americans, and it causes 35 states to be ignored by the candidates.

These shortcomings stem from the fact that 48 states choose to award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state —the so-called "winner-take-all rule."

Because of state laws that establish the winner-take-all rule, candidates have won a majority of the Electoral College, and hence moved into the White House without winning the most votes from citizens. It has happened in four of the 56 presidential elections.

Near misses are common. If 60,000 votes in Ohio shifted in 2004, U.S. Sen. John Kerry would have defeated President George W. Bush, whose nationwide lead was 3.5 million popular votes. Bush won the 2000 election by a few electoral votes as his opponent, U.S. Sen. Al Gore, won the total popular vote.

Additionally, because of the winner-take-all system, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the concerns of voters in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind.

In 2008, candidates concentrated more than two-thirds of their campaign visits and advertising in just six "battleground" states. Paying attention to the voters in the remaining states is pointless because there is nothing to gain or lose in those states.

In recent presidential elections, Connecticut has been completely ignored. After the election, when it comes time to govern, policies and issues important to the citizens of battleground states, and not spectator states such as Connecticut, are first priority on the White House's radar screen.

Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution gives the states the means to eliminate these shortcomings. The states have exclusive control over the manner of awarding their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule is not in the Constitution.

It was used by only three states in our nation's first election in 1789, and was not the choice of the Founders. Today, Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes by district. The simple fact is that the method of electing the president can be changed in the same way that the winner-take-all rule was installed, namely by passage of a state law.

The National Popular Vote Bill has been introduced in all state legislatures. It would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes. Under the National Popular Vote Bill, all electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia).

The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a president: 270 of 538 votes. This bill is now under consideration in Connecticut's General Assembly.

In short, the National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College, while reforming it so that it always reflects the nationwide choice of the people in all 50 states. The bill ensures that every vote will matter in every state in every presidential election. The National Popular Vote bill has so far been enacted by states possessing 29 percent of the electoral votes necessary to bring it into effect — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia.

It's time to for the states to act so that the president is elected by the national popular vote of the people.

State Sen. Edward Meyer of Guilford, a Democrat, represents the 12th District. Write to him at Legislative Office Building, Room 3200, Hartford 06106-1591. Email: Meyer@senatedems.ct.gov.