"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
    News Journal
    Popular vote bill is a democratic solution
    News Journal Op-Ed
    By Speaker Robert F. Gilligan
    June 17, 2011

    The state Republican Party chairman recently took to these pages to call a bill that has passed the House "destructive" and "bad for Delaware."

    He said House Bill 55, the National Popular Vote bill, should be "rejected by every legislator who loves Delaware and believes in our republic."

    Well, I love this state and our country and I support House Bill 55.

    Our current system of electing a president is archaic and overdue to be eliminated.

    Mr. Sigler is right when he says that our Constitution is a remarkable document that is the result of numerous compromises, and the Electoral College is one of them.

    It was conceived as a compromise between election of a president by Congress and by direct popular vote. It was a compromise so all 13 of the original states had a say in who was elected, instead of populous states like Virginia and Massachusetts dictating who was elected president.

    Fast-forward 200 years. The Electoral College has become a winner-take-all system in which the most populous states are electing our president, which is the opposite of what our Founders wanted.

    And where are the vast majority of presidential campaigns' attention, time and money spent?

    Ninety-eight percent of all campaign resources in 2008 were spent on just 15 states, with the top six "battleground" states accounting for more than two-thirds of all campaign cash.

    Despite having a vice presidential candidate from Delaware on the 2008 ticket, how much was spent here? Nothing. And Delaware was hardly alone. Twelve of the 13 smallest states in America were essentially ignored in the 2008 presidential election.

    Under the current system, a presidential candidate could win the popular vote -- by a large margin -- and lose the Electoral College and the presidency. A candidate could win as few as 11 states and gain enough electoral votes to win the presidency. When a candidate could win 39 states and still lose the presidency, something is really wrong.

    Imagine if we used election districts, which our state House and Senate districts are divided into, in the same way. If my opponent has more votes than me, but I won four out of seven election districts, I would win the seat. That is undemocratic.

    Mr. Sigler asserts that it is "exceedingly rare" for a presidential candidate to win the popular vote but lose the race because of the Electoral College.

    In fact, that has happened four times in our country's history. That's one out of 14 elections. I don't think that meets anyone's definition of "exceedingly rare."

    Someday in the not-too-distant future, we could have a candidate who loses the popular vote overwhelmingly but wins the Electoral College and therefore becomes president.

    That person will not have a mandate from the American people and could have a very difficult time governing our nation.

    Mr. Sigler and his supporters would have you believe that changing the winner-take-all system of the Electoral College is an attempt to undermine democracy. I would remind the former NRA president that many of the rights and freedoms that we now enjoy today started with states taking the initiative to improve our democracy, including women's suffrage and the right to vote.

    Some say if we want to change how we elect the president, we should amend the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College.

    I would point out that the Constitution does not spell out how states should distribute their electoral votes, so each state is free to determine how to award them.

    This country was founded on the principal that all men are created equal. If we truly believe that, then we must also believe that each person should have one vote, and that vote should count equally, whether they live in Delaware, California, Rhode Island or Texas.

    The president of the United States should be elected by the American people, not a handful of states. And the best way to accomplish that is by passing the National Popular Vote bill.



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