First 460 words of the document:
National Popular Vote System
The winner of the election would be whoever won the national
popular vote, which is the sum of all the votes in each state and
DC, instead of the Electoral College system with Electors.
IN FAVOUR OF NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE:
· All the original rationale for having for the Electoral College; like not
trusting the electorate to vote for the President and VP, and it is now a
constitutional anachronism- ie it is out of date
· The winner is not guaranteed a popular vote victory, and thus may lack
legitimacy. For example, Bush in 2000 won the election in the electoral
college, but his opponent Gore won the popular vote. Bush, for most of
his first term, was seen to have lacked legitimacy as a President. A
popular vote system would prevent this.
· Electoral college system leads to safe seats like Georgia and
California, which do not have much influence, and swing states have
too much influence, like Ohio. For example, in 2012, the election was
called for Obama after he won Ohio.
· Electoral college also allows for "Faithless electors", electors who do
not vote for the candidate they pledged to vote, for example in 2000 a
Washington DC elector did not place any votes in protest of the lack of
Congressional representation for DC, thus preventing those people
from having their say in an election.
· Third parties are penalised under this system and little to no chance of
actually being elected- for example, Ross Perot 20% of the Popular
Vote in 1992 but no states.
NO NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE:
· The Electoral College is a key part of the Constitution and thus getting
rid of it would require a constitutional amendment. Further, people
could see it as going against the Constitution.
· Electoral College requires candidates to campaign across all regions of
the US- for example, George Wallace, a 3rd party candidate who won
many states in the South but failed to gain support elsewhere- and a
NPV system may allow for candidates to concentrate on big cities or
· "Faithless electors" are arguably not a huge problem, as they have
never affected an outcome of an election
· A national vote system could lead to a number of third party
candidates and lead to the winner having, possibly, only 20% of the
vote, not a proper judge of the electorate
· The administration of elections could be become complicated and
controversial if nationalised; it is much easier to allow states to sort
out their own systems in elections.