PopVote.Org

                    A free, non-partisan resource for citizens, state legislators,             

state election officials, other interested parties..

click logo for video

This website is an educational and advocational tool for electing the President of the United States by popular vote. Getting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact passed in your state legislature and signed into law during 2009 or 2010 is vital to implementing the popular vote for 2012. If you are already involved in passing the required legislation in your state, or are just getting started - congratulations! This website is here to help you.

PHASE ONE: Educating state legislators, governors, state party leaders, and election officials on the negative impact of the current electoral college system, and the benefits of passing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. 

PHASE TWO: Introducing, passing and signing into law the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in your state.

This website is designed to provide state legislators, governors, state party leaders, and election officials with a quick and accurate overview of the issue, and to provide useful links to key data, resources, and advocacy groups. By including a link to www.popvote.org on your website (and in some of your email), you may provide a simple and  important educational component to YOUR state campaign on this issue.  Good luck!

If the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution is to be believed, perfecting our union was certainly on the minds of our forefathers. As a nation, we have generally acted on this concept, especially on matters of democracy. Voting was originally a privilege reserved for the few - white, male property owners. Voting rights for women and non-white citizens came very slowly, as we pursued a more perfect union. It was not until 1920 that the United States passed the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote. It was not until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that we outlawed discriminatory voting practices that preyed on African Americans and other minorities in the United States. Since 1965, we have generally made voter registration  easier, lowered the voting age to 18, expanded election hours, expanded absentee voting, implemented early voting - all because we get it. America works better when each of our citizens has a say. One person, one vote.

Today, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the practice of one person, one vote generally applies to electing local officials, governors, members of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate. Yet here we are, almost 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, still disenfranchising millions of voters of all races and geographic regions from our Presidential elections. Shouldn't 'perfecting our union' apply to Presidential elections?

In spite of its original intent, the electoral college stands as a throwback to our very darkest days of voter disenfranchisement. Having just elected and inaugurated our first African American President, it seems inconceivable that we still accept an 'election' process that disenfranchises whole states and large groups at a time.  The electoral college is the major force behind the creation of swing states, battleground states, and turning our Presidential elections into open warfare between 'red' and 'blue' states. The winner-take-all aspect of the electoral college has encouraged political marketers to make blue states bluer and red states redder.  Consequently, voters in super 'red' states who vote for a Democratic presidential candidate may look forward to casting more inconsequential votes in the foreseeable future. Likewise, voters in super 'blue' states who vote for a Republican candidate may also  look forward to more of the same - a wasted vote. How perfect is a union where Democratic votes don't count in Georgia, Florida or Texas, and Republican votes don't count in Maryland, California, New York or Massachusetts?

Fact and Fallacy.

The Electoral College is inherently undemocratic, assuring that:

Large numbers of voters (sometimes over 50%) in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, are guaranteed a no count vote in electing the President, and that -

Campaigns (replete with campaign promises) will concentrate on battleground states, while largely ignoring voters in other states - who comprise the vast majority of all voters. 

The large scale, institutionalized disenfranchisement imposed by the current electoral system begets large scale, deeply embedded disillusionment and disengagement.

• Is this healthy for voter turnout, our national spirit, or democracy?

• Do campaign promises geared to battleground states distort our national priorities?

• Is it any wonder that our resources are often directed toward 'bridge to nowhere' projects over those for the greater good? 

Proponents of the electoral system argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of federalism, and that a small state¹ may become disproportionately powerful if it becomes a swing state, and if it is then elevated to battleground status during a Presidential election.  This double bank shot is unreliable for any state, and especially improbable for a small state.

Let's explore 2 simple questions:

1. When do states become swing states?

       a.  When there are not enough safe states to insure one candidate

       at least 270 electoral college votes, and 

       b.  When no candidate has overwhelming support in that state, and

       c.  Occasionally, when a state is undergoing political transition

        from one party to the other.

In actual practice, just being a swing state doesn't mean much. A swing state must become a battleground state to garner the extra attention and clout so coveted in Presidential elections. To become a battleground state, both presidential candidates must believe that winning the electoral votes of that state is likely to change the outcome of the election.

2. Why are small swing states less likely to become

     battleground states than large swing states? 

    a. If a state represents only a few electoral votes, candidates

    are far less likely to believe the electoral votes from that state could

    change the outcome of the election - especially if the field is crowded

    with large swing states.

    b. Evidence matters. Consider West Virginia.

Frequently asked questions.

Is the change to a national popular vote favored by voters of either major party, gender, race or age group?

Yes. In fact, a recent national, non-partisan poll shows that support for a national popular vote was 88% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans², and 76% among others.   By gender, support for a national popular vote was 88% among women and 69% among men. By age, support for a national popular vote was 79% among 18-29 year olds, 78% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65. By race, support for a national popular vote was 80% among whites (representing 70% of respondents), 69% among African Americans (representing 13% of respondents), 79% among Hispanics (representing 13% of respondents), and 72% among others (representing 4% of respondents). The survey was conducted by Public Policy Polling and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 1/2%.

²Recent informal polling  indicates that about 95% of all Republican and Democratic voters object to the lack of a popular vote system. In the past, those advocating the popular vote focused on amending the federal constitution, a long and arduous process that tends to take away state control over presidential elections and give it to Congress. The National Popular Vote compact acknowledges the primacy of the states in the area of conducting elections. As a result, support for a national popular vote is accelerating, and becoming just as appealing among Republicans as Democrats.

Does the electoral college give small or large states special advantage or disadvantage?

No. Because there are simply more small states than large ones, the majority of swing states tend to be small.  This tends to be offset by the fact that small swing states are less likely to elevated to the status of battleground state than larger state with more electoral votes.

Does the electoral college system give any particular group of voters special advantage or disadvantage?

Yes. The electoral college motivates presidential candidates and state political parties to establish so-called 'safe state' strategies. Such strategies tend to focus on  safe, expedient pluralities , rather than larger, growth-oriented, sustainable constituencies.  Voters in the 'safe group', usually base voters, matter most. Voters currently outside the safe group tend to be excluded. 

When a presidential candidate or state political party is unable to establish a state as 'safe',  the state automatically becomes a risky, unreliable swing state. State political parties may then try to turn their accidental swing state into a battleground state. In battleground states, presidential candidates are motivated to seek short term plurality at almost any cost.  Battleground strategies sometimes cause party orientation to flip, yet analysts agree that such strategies help insure close races.  Close races insure that an unusually high percent of votes will fail to produce a single electoral vote.

Who supports or opposes the current electoral system?

22 state legislatures have already passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Governor Martin O'Malley was the first governor to sign the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, making Maryland the first state to enact state legislation to guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency. 

There seems to be little organized support of the current electoral system, or opposition to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - by the states or by major political parties.

Favorable voter support - the polls:

Southern voters in 2008:

Arkansas 80%, Mississippi 77%, North Carolina 74%, Virginia 74%.

Battleground states in 2008:

Colorado 68%, Florida 78%, Michigan 73%, Missouri 70%, New Hampshire 69, Nevada 72%, North Carolina 74%, Pennsylvania 78%, Ohio 70%, Wisconsin 71%.

Small states in 2008:

Delaware 75%, New Hampshire 69%, Maine 77%, Rhode Island 74% Vermont 75%

Other states in 2008:

California 70%, Connecticut 73%, Kentucky 80%, Massachusetts 73% Minnesota 75%, Nebraska 74%, New York 70%, Washington 77%

Support by governors and state political parties tends to be strongest in the 2 years immediately following a presidential election. 

Legal Basis of Electoral College System.

The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election. It consists of popularly elected representatives (electors) who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. The Twelfth Amendment provides for each elector to cast one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. It also specifies how a President and Vice President are elected. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each Presidential election. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state's legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College.

Numerous constitutional amendments have been introduced in the Congress seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote; however, no proposal has ever passed the Congress. The key to electing the President of the United States by popular vote is with our 50 state legislatures.

Imposing the popular vote on the Electoral College System.

The U.S. Constitution grants states complete power to allocate their electoral votes, and the right to change their state laws concerning the awarding of electoral votes at any time. In  National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all of the state’s electoral votes 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, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes, that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

¹ Small states (most notably Iowa and New Hampshire) have gained disproportionate power in choosing the President of the United States by conducting extremely early primary elections or caucuses in the Primary election cycle.  This disproportionate power cleverly garnered by these 2 small states is real, but has absolutely nothing to do with the electoral college system.

Footer information such as addresses and phone numbers here