The National Popular Vote bill, which was recently signed into law in Maryland and which recently passed the Hawaii House and Senate, would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Jim Henshaw's April 8 editorial in Hawaii Reporter ("Blithering Idiots at the Hawaii State Legislature") complains that, under this proposal, Hawaii's presidential electors would sometimes be of a different political party than the candidate who received the most popular votes in Hawaii.

However, the purpose of presidential election is to choose a person to serve as President for four years, not to pick four presidential electors who meet for a hour in Honolulu in mid-December of presidential election years to cast Hawaii's four electoral votes.

Under the National Popular Vote legislation, the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states would be guaranteed enough electoral votes (that is, at least 270 of 538) to be elected President. This legislation would only go into effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (that is, at least 270).

The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from the winner-take-all rule that awards all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes inside each state.

Because of the winner-take-all rule, candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or campaign in states that they cannot possibly win or lose. The result is that Hawaii issues are not on a presidential candidate's radar screen.

Instead, candidates concentrate on issues of importance to closely divided battleground states, such as New Hampshire and Ohio. In the November 2004 election, the candidates spent only $390,000 in Hawaii, compared with $4,600,000 in New Hampshire (which has the same 4 electoral votes as Hawaii). Candidates visited New Hampshire in the November election 6 times more often than Hawaii.

They visited Ohio 5 times more often than Hawaii (after adjusting for Ohio's larger size). Hawaii (and two-thirds of the states) are mere spectators of presidential elections.

Hawaii would increase its clout in presidential elections if the candidate with the most votes in all 50 states were guaranteed the Presidency. Nationwide election of the President would make a vote in Hawaii as important as an New Hampshire or Ohio voter. The 13 smallest states together contain 11 million people.

Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. However, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are irrelevant.

Nationwide election of the President would also mean that a candidate could not win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. A second-place candidate won in 1 in 14 elections, including 2000.

A shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the last 12 presidential elections. For example, a shift of 60,000 votes would have elected Kerry in 2004, even though President Bush was ahead by 3,500,000 votes nationwide.

Todd Shelly's reply to "Blithering Idiots at the Hawaii State Legislature"

—Dr. John R. Koza of Los Altos, CA, is the originator of the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote" contained in bill SB 1956 in the Hawaii Legislative. Reach him via email at koza@NationalPopularVote.com or log onto http://www.NationalPopularVote.com for more information.