Changing the Way the Votes Count?

I’m not sure I agree with the effort, but a question posed by the leader of National Popular Vote does stop and make one think.

Barry Fadem is the man. He’s president of the organization trying to persaude state legislatures to implement a popular election of the president. His question: "Why are all the other elections in this country based on the popular vote except for the most important one — the presidency?"

Supporters say the goal is to spread the wealth among candidate campaigning, similar to what Indiana experienced this spring for the first time in 40 years. Critics counter that rural areas will suffer, with candidates focusing on the big cities with the higher vote totals. has the most interesting story. What’s your preference: the tradition of the Electoral College or time for a change?

On a side note, the chairman of the National Popular Vote effort is a scientist best known for inventing scratch-off lottery tickets. If only I would have come up with that idea!

0 thoughts on “Changing the Way the Votes Count?

  1. To help make the change happen . . .

    Sign up to get email updates –

    Help get the word out and show your support.
    Tell a friend-
    Distribute literature at political, civic, or other meeting, convention, or conference.
    Post on discussion groups.
    Write letters to editors, OpEds, and/or blog.
    Please include a link to the National Popular Vote web site by including something like “See

    Responses to many common misinformed critiques are at

    Up-to-date information and materials are at

  2. I generally like variations of the proportional system, that the electoral votes get proportioned in the same as the popular vote in each state with the 2 senatorial votes going to the overall winner. A variation and probably an even more accurate method would be to apportion in accordance with how the vote goes by congressional district

    Another idea I have heard floated that has some merit is to do away with the electoral vote altogether, and go with more of a caucus style of voting system where the voter picks his top three choices and then whittle it down tournament bracket style to the ultimate winner

  3. It’s time to let go of the antiquated Electoral system. It was created in a time before mass media and campaign jets. Now, candidates and political issues get air time on every network, on every web site (with banner advertising to boot) and on the radio. And with candidates being able to hit 5 states in a day via their private jets, we have a public that has ample opportunity to see and understand the viewpoints of every candidate.

    The Electoral College was created so that the masses who had the right to vote but probably knew next to nothing about the candidates could be overridden if the popular vote ended up leaning toward a candidate that the Electorates viewed as undesireable. This had its place in the early 1800s, but in today’s world, it doesn’t make sense.

    The election in 2000 disenfranchised so many people by making it clear that the popular vote doesn’t count in the end. It’s about the controlling interests of local politicians, Electorates and even the Supreme Court. I’m not saying Al Gore would have been a great president, but he won the election, no question. He wasn’t a strong candidate, but neither was G.W.; that’s why it was close.

    It’s time to move into the 21st Century and accept the will of the people as the final word in politics. By the way, I have the same argument in favor of eliminating Super Delegates. 🙂

  4. Super Delegates: There has to be a better way than that. It appears we’re intent on creating and operating a system so complicated that only a few will understand. That has to be a detriment to the newcomers getting involved in the political process.