I still cant get excited about this becuase I do believe that the fix is already in and the outcome of the 2008 election has already been decided

Y'know what?

1.) ALL primaries (with paper trails) held on THE SAME DAY all over the country.
2.) Make election day a National Holiday for registered voters.
3.) FINE registered voters for "failure to appear".
4.) The obvious: Public-supported ONLY financing.
5.) My FANTASY: ISSUES ONLY CAMPAIGNS BY INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES! (The party system DISSOLVED!)

Anything to add, correct, or blow out of my water?

Just do it the right way and change the constitution.

Yeah, I know its like real work instead of a quick fix. The problem is, I don't think I'd ever support my state leading a charge in this direction. If the rest of the nation is playing by rules that say it goes state by state, then I don't want to surrender my states votes to a national vote. Unless all the states did that at once, I don't see how it happens.

Hey, has that petition that's been posted like 10,000 times out here changed the world yet?

We almost have all the primaries on one day now. Its Feb 5th.

Totalitarian states have had rules in the past mandating that everyone has to vote. Its a really stupid idea.

The rest of that list ain't bad. If I remember correctly, the founding fathers really hated the idea of political parties. But then again, they also warned us about the power of money and corporations.

My guess is politicians are always going to form alliances with others that think like they do. So there will always be parties. The problem we have is that we are locked into this system where there are only two parties (like the Soviets only allowed 1 party). If the system were more open, and allowed new parties to rise then it wouldn't be so restrictive.

Hey, you left out a couple from your list thought.

-- proportional representation instead of this winner-take-all crap. If 10% of Americans are Greens, then we should get about 40 seats in Congress.

-- Instant run-off voting for executive offices where you can't split things up like that.

At least we seen to be heading towards getting rid of these awful electronic voting machines. But that won't be the cure until we also do something about the computers that COUNT the votes.

The fix is in, but its in the design of the system. If the election is between Obama or Hillary and McCain or Huckabee, it don't matter how you vote. The corporations will have already won. Just the same as it didn't matter if the Dems or Rethugs controlled Congress. Either way, the corporations win. But hey, you can cheer the Dems for passing a law mandating covers on spas if you really want to get excited by the difference. :)

The whole design of today's system is that you can't win without corporate money and the support of corporate media. That's how the fix works. And that's why public financing is so key. And its why you won't see Dems nor Rethugs doing anything to make that happen. We gotten toss them all out to get real change.

If people would read the piece, the compact only goes into effect when there are enough states pledged to give the presidency to the winner of the popular vote. So it's the opposite of giving up your state's vote unilaterally, whichis what the Republicans are trying to get California voters to do.

while we do need to be vigilant about making sure everyone's ballot does count, I also don't think it helps to say "the fix is in" and shrug our shoulders. There was a partial change of power in 2006, just not one that went as far as we need.

About six million black, hispanic and Native American votes will either be thrown out or they won't even get to vote.

Sirota, why don't we deal with that first?

And a few million others will willingly be thrown out by fools chanting, "there's no difference between dems and reps."

David: It's another timid partial solution that does not address the basic problem. In a true democracy votes do not choose people, they resolve issues. So yes, we surely need reform, but with the right target.

It's the structure of the system that is failing us, no less. But even our deeper thinkers, like you, somehow insist on missing the point. I wish I could understand why.

COMarc: I did forget instant runoff. Good catch!

WARNING: The National Popular Vote is a very dangerous idea.

With the electoral college, the Repugs had to fix the elections in battleground states like Florida and Ohio. This is a somewhat tricky feat since slightly more than half the voters don't want you fix the election against them. Ohio fought hard to kick out Blackwell. Florida fought hard to get rid of the cheating machines but so far has failed but may succeed in the future.

It's much worse if the fight became national. The Repugs can rig the national outcome from the comfort of their headquarters in deep red states like TX, GA, NC etc. Instead of winning by a margin of X% in the red states, they can rig the election to win by a margin of X + 10%. Who would care enough to notice the problem in those states? This would falsely skew the national popular vote by approx. 5% in favor of the GOP, enough to swing a close election.

I would add to paper ballots, proportional representation, and instant run-off voting - no corporate contributions. No public financing - opening up another fund invites corruption and looting. Besides, you'd have to have public funding of hookers and golf vacations to fully compete with the lobbyists.

Instead, 3 month campaigns with free air time for all candidates to put forth their platforms. Like they had in Nicaragua in the 1980s. You know, when Reagan was attacking them with contra terrorists.

An informed public voting in open elections with proportional representation would go a long way to increasing the number of Americans willing to vote. Remember that 50% of Americans consider it futile to vote, and although I vote every time, I secretly agree with them.

Even though the Democrats have done a lousy job, it seems so certain that the Republicans should lose a lot of votes in 2008. Therefore, fixing the vote should raise far more protest than in the last two elections. 90% of the Republican Congress has voted in favor of every decision Bush has made, no matter how immoral or illegal. Surely there are enough Republican voters out there who realize that and will vote for their beliefs rather than their party.. If not, our country will be far worse off than it is now, and a de facto Fascism will prevail.
If nothing else, electronic voting should be banned. There are plenty of volunteers to count the votes. It would be almost impossible to fix voting that way.

Abolish the Electoral College. Period. This will require an amendment to the Constituion. For those who think it impossible or unneeded, recall that the original Constitution did not provide for direct election of the Senate either....

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."

"Passed by Congress May 13, 1912, and ratified April 8, 1913, the 17th amendment modified Article I, section 3, of the Constitution by allowing voters to cast direct votes for U.S. Senators. Prior to its passage, Senators were chosen by state legislatures.

The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, made the Senate an assembly where the states would have equal representation. Each state legislature would elect two senators to 6-year terms. Late in the 19th century, some state legislatures deadlocked over the election of a senator when different parties controlled different houses, and Senate vacancies could last months or years. In other cases, special interests or political machines gained control over the state legislature. Progressive reformers dismissed individuals elected by such legislatures as puppets and the Senate as a "millionaire's club" serving powerful private interests.

One Progressive response to these concerns was the "Oregon system," which utilized a state primary election to identify the voters' choice for Senator while pledging all candidates for the state legislature to honor the primary's result. Over half of the states adopted the "Oregon system," but the 1912 Senate investigation of bribery and corruption in the election of Illinois Senator William Lorimer indicated that only a constitutional amendment mandating the direct election of Senators by a state's citizenry would allay public demands for reform.

When the House passed proposed amendments for the direct election of Senators in 1910 and 1911, they included a "race rider" meant to bar Federal intervention in cases of racial discrimination among voters. This would be done by vesting complete control of Senate elections in state governments. A substitute amendment by Senator Joseph L. Bristow of Kansas provided for the direct election of Senators without the "race rider." It was adopted by the Senate on a close vote before the proposed constitutional amendment itself passed the Senate. Over a year later, the House accepted the change, and on April 8, 1913, the resolution became the 17th amendment."

One person, one vote. Period. Abolish the Electoral College. Wouldn't it be great to have a candidate run on THAT platform?

The more complicated the system, the more loopholes. Here is the simple formula:

1. Make license plate renewal, Medicare coverage, student loan eligibility, etc. contingent on voting.

2. Vote by email, snail mail or by phone using your SSN, credit card no. or other ID like we do to buy stuff online or pay our taxes online.

3. Make voter fraud a felony.

4. Dissolve the Electoral College.

5. Have one election for the Administration of the Federal Govt. and another for Fed. Reps. from each State and for state govt.

6. Better still, have a continuous binding referendum on all issues of public importance, allowing the public to become the lawmakers---See Senator Gravel's http://nationalinitiative.us/

This is the age of information and communications though it seems the government only uses technology to persecute the public.

The vote doesnt matter, the only ones you can normally vote for are those who have been selected by your leaders. Either one is ok for them, since they know who the boss is.

And what happens when there is a surprise? They just run out a 3rd party candidate to take votes away from the surprise candidates party. Sometimes even a 4th. And when all else fails, they steal it.

The last surprise candidate that got in was JFK, he pretended to be something he wasn't, and when the leaders got wise, bang, bang.

I may be the only person posting here to feel this way but I prefer the Electoral College to an all out popular vote. I think this was a very wise action by the Founding Fathers. In my opinion, it levels the playing field for states with smaller populations. If I lived in N. Dakota it would pretty depressing to know that presidential elections rested primarily in the hands of New York, California, Texas and Florida. In 2000 Bush lost the popular vote but won 30 states. If Gore could've carried Tennessee, all the mess in Florida would've been totally irrelevant.

My biggest concern is the electronic voting with no paper trail. It opens the system to serious fraud. Paper ballots are a much better option.

An even bigger problem may be that Americans, for the most part, aren't taking control. We could clean house every two years if we wanted. Hundreds of thousands of us combining our dollars for our preferred candidates (what I consider public financing) could outspend big corporations. The internet is more powerful than the MSM. Public awareness and earnest participation will eventually win -- we just have to be committed for the long haul.

"– Instant run-off voting for executive offices where you can't split things up like that."

"COMarc: I did forget instant runoff. Good catch!"

Yes!! More people pushing for instant runoff. For a few months I was feeling rather lonely, asking people on this forum to support/debate it.

I saw one other post recently calling for "Instant Runoff or range voting."

IRV is the simplest change within our grasp. Let us continue to push for it, and mention it whenever we can.

Remember when Hillary talked about pushing that through. Nothing, nothing ever happened with this. Just like her presidency would be.

You should not just do it in a few states to gain political advantage. Whether it is popular vote or proportional electoral, it should be done in all states at the same time.

While we are at it, let's make consistent rules for voting for President in all states as well. No more political favors and playing dirty tricks. We have seen what that leads to.

I'd like to see run-off voting, so that we could vote for out first choice, second choice, third choice and so on. This would help people get over their fear of "wasting" their vote and open up elections to the lower tier candidates.

And have the elections funded by our tax-payer dollars, with a cap on the amount of money to be used, so that the wealthy don't have a big advantage.

You can't get a license or a student loan without voting? I don't think so. A "free" country with mandatory voting? That is an oxymoron.

Using your SSN# to vote? You shouldn't be giving your SSN# to anyone but your employer and your bank. It amazes me that Americans recite their number on command to anyone that asks for it. It is an invasion of your privacy. They have no right to ask you for your number.

I paid for a vet bill with a check and the airhead behind the counter said, "Our bank requires that you write you SSN# on your check" I said "Why does your bank need to know my number?" That stumped her little brain and she made a frowny face. It turned out that their bank didn't need to know my number.

Quit cooperating with authority. Don't show your ID to every rent-a-cop that demands it, or at least argue with them about it. If everyone resists, they will have to stop it, at least in some places. What's wrong with Americans, waving their flags and screaming about freedom, and then showing their papers to anyone who asks?

What next, the microchip?

To be involved in the National Popular Vote bill effort . . .

You can check the status of the bill in your state at http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/statesactivity.php

If it's still in play in your state, let your legislator(s) know what you think. If you need help to identify and/or contact your state representatives, senators, and/or governor about National Popular Vote, you can search by your zip code using online sites such as http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home .

Sign up to get email updates - http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/getemailupdates.php

Help get the word out and show your support.

Tell a friend- http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/tellafriend.php

Distribute literature at political, civic, or other meeting, convention, or conference.
Post on discussion groups.
Write letters to editors, OpEds, and/or blog.

Responses to many common misinformed critiques are at http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/faq.php

Up-to-date information and materials are at http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/explanation.php

The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.

Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).

Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 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. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, 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 utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.

The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York's use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming--both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.

The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

As of 2008, the National Popular Vote bill has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.

The "normal way" of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.

Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, nowadays, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state .

The "normal process" of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

What the current U.S. Constitution says is "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, "one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes."

In Illinois in the 1960s, accusation of vote fraud by both political parties were commonplace. In 1960, a switch of 4,430 votes in Illinois and a switch 4,782 votes in South Carolina would have given Nixon a majority of the electoral votes. However, 4,430 votes in Illinois were only a focus of controversy in 1960 because of the statewide winner-take-all rule. John F. Kennedy led Richard M. Nixon by 118,574 popular votes nationwide, so 4,430 votes were not decisive in terms of the national vote count. Of course, if Nixon had carried Illinois and a state such as South Carolina in 1960, Nixon would have won a majority of the votes in the Electoral College, despite not receiving a majority of the popular votes nationwide.