http://www.commoncause.org/...dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4878055

Common Cause supports the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote," as a constitutional and practical way to implement nationwide popular election of the President—a goal supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans (over 70% in recent Gallup polls). The idea has been widely endorsed by major newspapers and opinion leaders across the nation. As of July 2008, it has been enacted in Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii. It will go into effect once ratified by states comprising a majority of the Electoral College.

Problem: Second Place Candidates Finish First

Four times in our history, most recently in 2000, the candidate who received the most votes lost the presidency. This almost happened again in 2004, when a shift in 60,000 votes in Ohio would have elected John Kerry to the White House despite a popular vote victory by George W. Bush of more than 6 million votes. 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.

Solution: Elect the President with the Popular Vote

Just as the Constitution has allowed individual states to switch to the current winner-take all system, it also allows states to collectively move to a different system. Several states have now decided to award their electors to the candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states. But, they will only do so if other states that collectively represent a majority of the Electoral College join a legally binding agreement to do the same thing. This would guarantee that the candidate who wins the popular vote would receive at least the 270 electoral votes from those states who have joined this plan, and would then become president.

This plan for electing the president by national popular vote was proposed on February 23, 2006 by a commission that included former Congressmen John Anderson (R-Illinois and Independent presidential candidate) and John Buchanan (R-Alabama), former Senator Birch Bayh (D-Indiana), former Common Cause President Chellie Pingree, FairVote Executive Director Rob Richie, National Popular Vote President Barry Fadem, and Dr. John R. Koza, originator of the plan.

Among its benefits:

* The National Popular Vote would make all votes equal.
* It would bring candidates to every state and make them listen to everyone’s concerns.
* It would give voters in all states, regardless of party affiliation, an incentive to vote in presidential elections and would help build voter turnout efforts in all states.
* It would rid the nation of falsely polarized red and blue election night maps.

I love it. I'm in a state that occasional elects a Republican Senator, but hasn't voted red in a presidential election since 1988. It's such a foregone conclusion that states like California, Illinois and Massachusetts will go blue and that Texas and most of the Bible Belt will go red that there's rarely a time when any candidates spend any time there. Meanwhile, Iowa and New Hampshire becomes super important during the primaries and Ohio and Florida always seem important during the general election. Instead of pandering to what people in Columbus or Tallahassee want, why not open up the election to where every vote could matter?

I like the idea of Popular Vote. I do NOT like the idea of Electoral College.

While I understand how and why the Electoral College was established, it has the potential to usurp the Will of the People in every Presidential Election.

This is long overdue. The votes are not carried by postman on horses any more so there is no reason use the electoral college.

It also seems odd that places still use paper ballots. Since it is possible to access the internet by phone from almost anywhere in the world there should be a way to vote electronically in every place in the USA.

I understand the paper ballots moreso, as it ensures that there can be a recount.

If someone were able to hack the system, they could obviously change the election and there'd be no paper trail.

Not that there aren't fraudulent votes being cast out there still, but I at least see the reason for that. Now counting out ballots instead of using electronic vote counters is absurd.

I don't give a fluff about popular vote vs electoral college. Start deciding that stuff when we start having free and fair elections. Until then I don't care what manner you choose to use to fluff us over.

im ok with the winner being the one who does ball in a cup better. honestly wont change a thing. its all garbage in garbage out

And exactly what might your idea of "free and fair elections" be if I might ask?

LOL, everyone seems to think the US is a Democracy. It's not and never has been and should not be. The US is a Republic, granted it's a democratic republic but it's still a Republic and should stay that way. A ture Democracy can infringe on the rights of the indivdual more easily.

+10

Does Wartime ever form his own opinion? Or just c/p everything

Elections where taxpayer money isn't used to exclude candidates, and candidates aren't faced with unreasonable signature requirements, filing fees, and tacky penalties.

Oh, and where you don't have gerrymandering like this:
http://planning.maryland.gov/...10maps/Cong/Statewide.pdf

Why do you insist on being an asshat? I post the article and then answer most of them with my own opinion.

I do not see you answering anything with your own opinion.