States Consider Plan To Choose President Through Popular Vote

[Purveyor]

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - If John R. Koza gets his way, American voters will never again have to wonder about the workings of the Electoral College and why it decides who sits in the White House.

Koza is behind a push to have states circumvent the odd political math of the Electoral College and ensure that the presidency always goes to the winner of the popular vote.

Basically, states would promise to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the most support nationwide, regardless of who carries each particular state.

"We're just coming along and saying, Why not add up the votes of all 50 states and award the electoral votes to the 50-state winner?' " said Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote Inc. "I think that the candidate who gets the most votes should win the office."

The proposal is aimed at preventing a repeat of the 2000 election, when Al Gore got the most votes nationwide but George W. Bush put together enough victories in key states to win a majority in the Electoral College and capture the White House.

So far, Maryland and New Jersey have signed up for the plan. Legislation that would include Illinois is on the governor's desk. But dozens more states would have to join before the plan could take effect.

The idea is a long shot. But it appears to be easier than the approach tried previously - amending the Constitution, which takes approval by Congress and then ratification by 38 states.

---EOE---

http://www.grandforksherald.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=D8UNL11G0

[FARAFIELD]

1. Ive never got this arguement

Its redundant to do that, just abolish the electoral college and you have a popular vote winner. why add an extra step.

[Thothmes]

3. Very hard to do

That would require an Amendment to the Constitution.

[lurky]

4. And small states would never ratify it.

The Electoral College gives them proportionally more power than they would have without it. Your presidential vote is worth a lot more in Wyoming than it is in California. How democratic is that?

edit: typo

[Thothmes]

8. While it is not democratic

It is what is required by the Constitution. Which incidentally only requires a Republican form of government, not a democratic one.

[LaStrega]

2. the way it should be IMHO k&r n/t

[Forkboy]

5. What a thoughtful bastard!

Imagine that?

[SoCalDem]

6. Never happen.. small states will never give up their power..

it would take a 75% ratification to amend ..

[ConcernedCanuk]

7. That's just TOO Democratic! - never happen . .

.
.
.
(sigh)