"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
    Washington Post
    Two Weeks of Trivia
    Washington Post column
    By David Broder
    May 8, 2008

    The endless Democratic presidential campaign has lurched from irrelevance to trivia, triggering a near-universal call to bring it to a halt.

    The two states that voted on Tuesday — Indiana and North Carolina — are so unimportant to Democratic chances of electing the next president that it is unlikely Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would make more than a token appearance in either after one of them is nominated.

    Unless John McCain butchers his campaign, he will be an odds-on favorite to continue the Republican winning streak in both states. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and a host of earlier candidates failed to make them competitive.

    In a sensible nominating system, these states would never become important battlegrounds. Lots of people complain that Iowa and New Hampshire enjoy disproportionate influence because of their place at the start of the process. But both are closely contested in November — not throwaways.

    Indiana and North Carolina were doubly irrelevant this year, because the "issues" that Clinton and Obama discussed in the two weeks before those states' primaries were some of the phoniest of this entire election cycle.

    Obama was all but obliterated for that time by the huge media-fanned controversy over his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright's inflammatory comments were obnoxious, but they bore no resemblance to the rhetoric and the record of the Illinois senator. I'd like to know what kind of people Obama would bring into his White House and where he would turn for a Cabinet, because there is so much uncertainty about his actual policies at home and abroad.

    Wright would clearly not be anywhere in that administration, so why waste a full fortnight on him?

    But if Obama contributed to the Wright fiasco through his hesitancy to break with him, Clinton was worse. She flooded North Carolina and Indiana with phoniness — playing a drag version of Dennis Kucinich, a beer-drinking populist, not the honors graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School that she is.

    As if that were not enough, she joined McCain in promoting the idea of a gas tax holiday that would last just through the summer, a step that would guarantee no actual reduction in the price at the pump and could encourage more energy waste. The fact that this cockamamie idea had already been rejected not only by President Bush but also by the Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, did not deter Clinton from promoting it as if it were a serious policy.

    For all the factors that ought to diminish the importance of Tuesday's results, the political effect was to move Obama a significant distance down the road to nomination. He added to his delegate totals and, more important, the two largest states that had remained are now off the table, leaving Clinton without plausible places to recover.

    The states that are left — West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota — have small populations and are notably lacking in the kind of political prestige that would magnify their influence on the uncommitted superdelegates.

    Since it began last year, this has been a fascinating campaign. The massive Democratic turnouts augur well for the party's nominee. But as I talked to a variety of officials just before and after Tuesday's primary, the weariness they expressed with the process became stronger with each passing day.

    In celebrating his big victory in North Carolina, Obama signaled that he is as tired of his battle with Clinton as most Democrats are of watching it. He was gracious to his opponent and plainly eager to move on to the general election campaign against McCain.

    The optimists in his camp believe he may be able to wrap up the nomination this month, but even if the fight goes longer than that, the outcome no longer seems to be in doubt.

    The wobbles in Obama's performance this past month signal at least some of his vulnerabilities. But his strengths have been demonstrated many, many times. All of them will be needed in the challenge ahead.


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