Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all POLICY INITIATIVES directly. The National Popular Vote bill keeps the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Governors, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc. Trump called for the termination of the Constitution because of his 2020 Electoral College loss. 90% of congressional Republicans have nothing to say about that. As President, in late January 2017, Trump reportedly floated the idea of scrapping the Electoral College, according to The Wall Street Journal. In a meeting with congressional leadership at the White House. Trump reportedly told the lawmakers he wanted to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. “I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.” Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted. There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform. According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY). Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points to be assured of winning the Electoral College." A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. The George W. Bush campaign was planning to challenge the results of the 2000 vote if he lost the electoral vote, but won the popular vote. If the 2022 Election Had Been a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by about 3 million votes (2.8 percentage points). When Nikki Haley announced her campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, she remarked that the Republican Party had “lost the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections.” That, she said, “has to change.” In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted 338–70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President. 3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster of it. Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX), Bob Dole (R-KS, RNC Chair, and GOP Senate Majority Leader), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Nixon (R-CA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001) Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –IL). Newt Gingrich: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions. Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office. The small states do not share a political tendency. In the 25 smallest states the Democratic and Republican popular vote and electoral vote have almost tied In 2008 - 9.9 million versus 9.8 million popular votes 57 versus 58 electoral votes. In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined. The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states. In the 13 smallest states the Democratic and Republican popular votes and 59 electoral votes have almost tied. Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012. Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most. Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . . Governance—not just campaigning—is distorted when presidential campaigns concentrate on just a few states. Sitting presidents contemplating their own re-election (or the election of their preferred successor) formulate public policy around the concerns of the handful of states that actually decide the presidency. 41 states voted for the same party in the most recent four presidential elections, and the number of closely divided battleground states has been shrinking from decade to decade. In 2024, the presidential race may have only 4 competitive states -- Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona as true battlegrounds, where all the focus of campaigns would be, with 15% of US population and 43 electoral votes -- would begin with Democrats favored to win 260 Electoral College votes and Republicans 235.- CNN, 11/22/22 38+ states and 70% of all Americans have been irrelevant in presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states. Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important. The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years. Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions. Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states. The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican. In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined, This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic. When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all POLICY INITIATIVES directly. Constitutional republic – “rather than directly governing, the people select some of their members to temporarily serve in political office; the constitutional part means that both the citizens and their governing officials are bound to follow the rules established in that Constitution.” Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election by the Electoral College of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country. Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would), or without an Electoral College, would not make us a pure democracy. Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. It is not rule by referendum. The National Popular Vote bill keeps the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Governors, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc. The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes The National Popular Vote bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. It would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. will continue to represent us. Math and political reality. There aren’t anywhere near enough big city voters nationally. And all big city voters do not vote for the same candidate. The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Phoenix) is less than 6% of the population of the United States. Voters in the biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition. 2020 Census 65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people). From 2020-2022, 2 million left those cities. 66,300,254 in rural America (20%) Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population. In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities. 19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. 19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined.

MASSACHUSETTS HISTORY In 1789, Massachusetts had a two-step system in which the voters cast ballots indicating their preference for presidential elector by district, and the legislature chose from the top two vote-getters in each district (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors). In 1792, the voters were allowed to choose presidential electors in four multi-member regional districts (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors). In 1796, the voters elected presidential electors by congressional districts (with the legislature choosing only the state’s remaining two electors). In 1800, the legislature took back the power to pick all of the state’s presidential electors (entirely excluding the voters). In 1804, the voters were allowed to elect 17 presidential electors by district and two on a statewide basis. In 1808, the legislature decided to pick the electors itself. In 1812, the voters elected six presidential electors from one district, five electors from another district, four electors from another, three electors from each of two districts, and one elector from a sixth district. In 1816, Massachusetts again returned to state legislative choice. In 1820, the voters were allowed to elect 13 presidential electors by district and two on a statewide basis. Then, in 1824, Massachusetts adopted its 10th method of awarding electoral votes, namely the statewide winner-take-all rule that is in effect today. In 2010, Massachusetts enacted the National Popular Vote interstate compact. This change will go into effect when states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 out of 538) enact the same compact. None of these 11 changes required an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These changes were accomplished using the Constitution’s built-in method for changing the method of electing the President, namely section 1 of Article II. That constitutional provision gives Massachusetts (and all the other states) exclusive and plenary power to choose the manner of awarding their electoral votes.

. State-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by 48 states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again. The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral vote National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1 “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, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century. Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) 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, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800). In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council, appointment by both houses of the state legislature, popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts, popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts, popular election using congressional districts, popular election using multi-member regional districts, combinations of popular election and legislative choice, appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and statewide popular election. The current statewide winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The state based winner take all system was not adopted by a majority of the states until the 11th presidential election. - decades after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state. The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes. As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have statewide winner-take-all laws– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected. The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in 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. The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency. It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen. The National Popular Vote bill simply again replaces state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws.

“there is no constitutional problem with a state using other states’ voting tallies, even if the states have different voting rules and ballot forms. As long as each state treats people within its own borders equally, there is no equal-protection issue” – Vikram D. Amar There is nothing incompatible between differences in state election laws and the concept of a national popular vote for President. That was certainly the mainstream view when the U.S. House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment in 1969 for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. That amendment retained state control over elections. The 1969 amendment was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, then-Senator Bob Dole, and then-Senator Walter Mondale. The American Bar Association also endorsed the proposed 1969 amendment. The proposed 1969 constitutional amendment provided that the popular-vote count from each state would be added up to obtain the nationwide total for each candidate. The National Popular Vote compact does the same. Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are co-mingled and simply added together, irrespective of the fact that the electoral-vote outcome from each state was affected by differences in state policies, including voter registration, ex-felon voting, hours of voting, amount and nature of advance voting, and voter identification requirements. Federal law requires that each state certify its popular vote count to the federal government (section 6 of Title 3 of the United States Code). Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote compact, all of the people of the United States are impacted by the different election policies of the states. Everyone in the United States is affected by the division of electoral votes generated by each state. The procedures governing presidential elections in a closely divided battleground state (e.g., Florida and Ohio) can affect, and indeed have affected, the ultimate outcome of national elections. For example, the 2000 Certificate of Ascertainment (required by federal law) from the state of Florida reported 2,912,790 popular votes for George W. Bush and 2,912,253 popular vote for Al Gore, and also reported 25 electoral votes for George W. Bush and 0 electoral votes for Al Gore. That 25–0 division of the electoral votes from Florida determined the outcome of the national election just as a particular division of the popular vote from a particular state might decisively affect the national outcome in some future election under the National Popular Vote compact. The 1969 constitutional amendment, endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, then-Senator Bob Dole, and then-Senator Walter Mondale, and The American Bar Association and, more importantly, the current system also accepts the differences among states.

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. Pew Research surveys show Republican support for a national popular vote increased from 27% in 2016 to 42% in 2022. 21,461 choices and votes in 3 states were 329 times more important than the more than 7 million national vote lead in the country. There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. That could have reduced future turnout more, if more voters realized their votes do not matter. Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic. More than 3,700 state legislators among all 50 states have endorsed it. The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 42 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 283 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6). The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes. When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, again using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to choose how to vote. States are agreeing to award their combined 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again replacing their state’s law. State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill. Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in each state) and (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. It has occurred in 5 of the nation's 60 (8%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 17 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 9 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes. Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points to be assured of winning the Electoral College." In 2016, Trump became President even though Clinton won the national popular vote by 2,868,686 votes. Trump won the Presidency because he won Michigan by 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes. Each of these 78,000 votes was 36 times more important than Clinton's nationwide lead of 2,868,686 votes. A different choice by 5,229 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 5,890 in Georgia (16), and 10,342 in Wisconsin (10) would have defeated Biden -- despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country. Each of these 21,461 voters was 329 times more important than the more than 7 million. The national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836. After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College." According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY). If the 2022 Election Had Been a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by 2.8 percentage points, 3 million votes.

Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. It is not a fair “compromise” or solution. In three of the six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020, the winner of the most votes nationwide would not have won the Presidency if the congressional-district method had been applied to election returns. Presidential campaigns are not attracted to a state by the congressional-district method, but, instead, only to the relatively few closely divided district(s) –if any - in the state. Many districts in the US are gerrymandered to not be fair. In 2022, only 10% of 435 were competitive. Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote. Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide. When Nebraska in 2008 gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state, it was the first split electoral vote of any state in the past century. 2016 was the first time one electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state. In June 2019, 77 Maine state Representatives and 21 Maine state Senators supported the National Popular Vote bill. In a March 12-13, 2019 poll, Maine voters were asked how the President should be elected 52% favored “a system where the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states is the winner.” 31% favored “a system where electoral votes are given out by Congressional district” --- Maine’s current method for awarding 2 of its 4 electoral votes 16% favored “a system where all the electoral votes in a given state are awarded to whoever gets the most popular votes in that state” --- the winner-take-all method currently used by 48 states and used in Maine to award 2 of its 4 electoral votes Recent campaigns have paid attention to Nebraska’s closely divided 2nd congressional district (the Omaha area), while totally ignoring the rural and politically non-competitive 1st and 3rd districts. After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008,Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support. A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016. In 2021, after Biden won 1 electoral vote, another Republican sponsored bill to change to statewide winner-take-all was introduced, again, In 2021, a Republican redistricting proposal would cleave off Democratic-leaning northwest Douglas County from a Nebraska congressional district that has been won by presidential and congressional Democrats at various points over the past decade. In 2023, another bill was introduce to strike language in existing state law that divides Nebraska’s electoral votes by congressional districts in presidential elections, effectively implementing a winner-take-all system used by nearly every other state. The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

Every state has NOT modified its consitution. Every state has enacted state laws. Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide. States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law. States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose how to award electors. When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College. All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the number of votes cast for each, and are signed and certified by the Governor, submitted to the National Archives, and used when Congress meets in joint session in January. You can see the real Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site The National Popular Vote is the total of the votes from all 50 states and DC

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votesâ"that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded. The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators â" 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a stateâ(TM)s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%). The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes â" 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. See http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided âoebattlegroundâ states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 âoebattlegroundâ states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections. In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.