::::::::
The thing I am talking about is the National Popular Vote Plan, a plan that would shift the earth beneath American presidential politics. It is a way of getting around the electoral college without actually getting rid of it or adding an amendment to the Constitution.This is an effort that is currently underway, and it is entirely at the state level. Its home on the web is here, and that website is of the people who are currently polling voters and lobbying state legislators all over the country to introduce the National Popular Vote Compact in their state. This compact says that the state will give its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote (not the winner of a majority of votes - just the winner of the most votes). It will take effect once states representing a majority of electoral votes sign it into law - that way, a majority of electoral votes will go to the popular vote winner, even if not every electoral vote does. It is explained further at the website if you don't understand.
So far, this has been signed into law in four states, passed both houses of the state legislature in four states, passed one house in eight states, and made it through committee in seven states. There are only four states that haven't had the bill introduced and only two of those don't have a sponsor for the bill already.
So why isn't this huge shift in American politics being covered in the news at all? Well, it's state politics, for one. It is not a flashy, news-generating Constitutional amendment. That is the brilliance of it, though - it does not generate more attention than it needs to and therefore does not generate more controversy than it needs to. It also needs less approval from state legislatures at this level, because a majority of states do not need to ratify it. Only states representing a majority of electoral votes need to sign it into law for it to take effect. If you have any other reasons, say them!
What kind of an effect could this have on American politics? Well, the current campaign focus on the suburbs would be lessened. Some of that might shift to the cities, but it could shift anywhere because anywhere that people live is a chance to get more votes, which automatically would mean more electoral votes. Some might argue that this would be detrimental because it would narrow the focus of presidential campaigns to big cities and populous states, but presidential campaigns are already slanted. A voter in a small state like Wyoming has much more power with their vote than someone in a populous state like California, because there are less electoral votes per voter in small states. This problem would be solved by the National Popular Vote Plan - we would truly be a country in which (at least during presidential elections) we have "one man, one vote."
Another problem solved by instituting this plan is the problem of "swing states." As you probably know, these are states in which the winner is not easily predicted. What ends up happening in elections is that a vast majority of a candidate's resources are targeted at these states, meaning that the small states which the Electoral College was meant to protect are pushed out of the picture, and presidential campaigns ignore the majority of the country (in terms of geography and population).
And then there is the one-in-100 problem solved by this. All of the others affect every presidential election - and even affect policy decisions after presidential elections - but every so often we have a winner of the electoral vote who did not want the popular vote. I'm sure all of you know about that, though. These are usually corrupt or backroom deals that overturn the will of the people and have devastating results, like the election of George Bush or the end of Reconstruction in 1876 with the deal that put Rutherford B. Hayes in office.
As you can tell, I'm supportive of this plan. It's not perfect, but it sure is an improvement and it is likely to happen in the near future (so far, states representing 50 electoral votes have ratified the plan), so I definitely support it. What do you think? Why do you think it doesn't receive enough attention, or do you think it receives a lot of attention? Anything else?
