Bloodless Coup

I don't know, I think this could go somewhere. maybe not by 2008, but it makes perfect sense.

It would not take any Constitutional amendments, and it is obviously the only fair way to vote.

Could you imagine if we tried to institute our current presidential election system on any other election? Chaos.

it's definitely an intriguing idea, though i think it faces an even more uphill battle than acknowledged by its advocates. i continue to be sympathetic to the goals of the framers to preclude the marginalization of small states, but of course if we must choose between marginalizing small states or big states (and the latter are largely marginalized under the current system), i'd rather the smaller states be marginalized (this means i think texas and arizona, just like california and new york, should see a lot of campaigning sent their way, given how many people work and live within their borders).

plus, marginalization is a relative thing: the senate is still designed to enable even the smallest states to look out for their interests, and insofar as the president is the president of a nation, no one voter, regardless of what state she inhabits, should exercise more power than another, which surely is not the case presently.

indeed, it'd be interesting to see some statistical study that measures the relative weight of, say, a new york city voter's vote in a national presidential election versus a nebraskan's vote. i would think one could do a sort of economic analysis aimed at setting a hypothetical dollar value to a campaign seeking the office of a given vote -- i.e., it's worth spending $200 per voter in nebraska, while it's worth only $12 per voter in new york. that would be a handy approach to quantifying the differing values of voters in different states, and would illustrate the importance of nationalizing the count for president.

Well given that presidential campaign spending (in the general election) is largely distributed through media markets (not on a state basis) and goes to "swing" states (neither large or small states necessarily) I think the "small state" argument should be a thing of the past. How does having this really help the small states get attention or power when you know exactly how most of the small states (Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, Nebraska and Kansas to name just a few) will vote in every presidential election, regardless of who the candidates are.

Even if you were to keep the college formula though we should 1) get rid of the electors (to avoid "faithless elector" issues 2) NOT send an election to the US House - and certainly not to a voting scheme in the US House where all the voters of California get the same say as all the voters of Wyoming and 3) create clear rules about how electors votes should be alloted if a catastrophe befalls one of the "winners" between the national election the "winner" assuming office.

Great to see the dialogue launched here. We see this effort as practical (for insight into that, see info on the Illinois legislation already introduced by key state senators in both parties at www.nationalpopularvote.com) and urgent (see FairVote's new report Presidential Elections Inequality, at www.fairvote.org/presidential). That report has good data on how most small states get no attention, most large states get no attention nad most mid-sized states ... get no attention. And it's getting worse.

Right now, only - what - 17 States see any form of campaigning? I think what we currently have is a worst-case scenario. I am also glad to see the dialogue happening. Thanks for the links Rob, crazy data.