Or Scott wouldn't it even be a better representation of popular vote if every state simply agreed to award its electoral college votes proportionally to its own popular vote instead of having 100% of its electoral votes handed to the winner of a simple 51% majority like here in Mass.

I've always felt that the winner in the presidential election should be the candidate with the most votes. And I especially agree this is the case when"my"candidate loses. Whatever usefulness the Electoral College had, I believe we are past that point now.

Only in politics would a plan to decide a winner by picking the person who receives the most votes have to be considered "ingenious." And of course, the nation would lose its collective ability to identify all Ohio towns by what it looks like inside their local high school gymnasium or VFW hall.

A national recount would be a nightmare. Easier method : Winner of any state gets 50% of the electoral votes; with the other half of the votes being distributed proportionally. There would be a difference in a candidate winning 40% as opposed to 48%. Every vote and turnout would be validated.

Thank you for this column! I have been making the same argument, but have thought that change is impossible. I forgot about The National Popular Vote plan. It just makes so much sense. Every vote should count equally, and whoever gets the most votes should win.

I think it is a good idea, because the focus on just the swing states does seem to be very inefficient.  But I can also imagine in states like Massachusetts, where a Republican winning the popular vote, and Mass having to commit its electoral votes to him or her would cause rioting in the streets.  It will cause some very uncomfortable times in deeply ideological states, when the other side wins.

Why not use the "KISS" concept.  He who gets the most votes wins.  Every one knows that all those "folks" who live on the East and West coasts are more intelligent, better educated and know what is best for everyone.  I am wearied by those foolish founding fathers who generated a  constitution that required amending to really get it right.  I am also wearied by columnists who cannot find something real to write about.  Add the fellow commentor below who uses the term, "deeply idealogical Republican party" to my source of fatigue.

Scott: So, the advantage here is that the plan doesn't involve a change to the Constitution, but relies on a compact? How binding and/or Constitutional would it be? I certainly feel a little letdown when I vote for president, unless there's another important race on the ballot, that my vote doesn't matter much here. I used to be an "Electoral College" guy, for semi-sentimental/historical/nostalgic reasons, but why not go the whole way? Amendment: Popular vote determines the presidency? (Then we rewrite history and Gore becomes president in 2000 and we get a chance to try again.) Amendment: All political contributions have to come from an individual citizen.

Scott - The country has been over this for decades.  The problem with using the popular voes is that less populated states have less say in the issues that matterr to them.  Using the popular vote woiuld give significant advantages to states like NY and California and igonore needs of Wyoming and Utah.

This is why the framers of the Constitution structured the election process this way.  You guys need to read past arguments to under stand why just the popular vote is not in the best interest of all Americans

it would probably increase voting. I bet there are people in MA that do not vote for a republican becuase they know it does not matter on the national stage. I think it could also open the door for more voter fraud (yes MORE).

OT - Warren did  not feel the need to get a MA law license. She is a hoot.

On principle I disagree, Scot. If the goal is to give supremacy to the popular vote, amend the Constitution. Short of that, NPVIC is not really the best method of reform. How a State awards Electoral votes is up to the States, thus, in principle, the NPVIC is in line with Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Maine and Nebraska, however, award Electoral votes by Congressional District. To my thinking this is far more reasonable, since NPVIC is still a 'winner take all' format. Awarding by district still carries the risk that the Party in control of a State's legislature will give in to the temptation to gerrymander districts, and it does not address the issue (perhaps suitable for another article?) that 435 is too restrictive and we should adopt the 'Wyoming Rule' to expand the ranks of the House as the population grows, but it is nevertheless a more reasonable reform. Ultimately, the argument about campaigns ignoring areas they consider either to be safe in their camp, or safe in the other side's camp isn't going to be resolved. Candidates will still focus on where they think they can sway swing voters to their side.

Does anyone else here miss TheSystemWorked? And what is it with these user names that are just the word "user" followed by a long number (there are several of them; different numbers) - are they illegal immigrants or something?

It's such a dumb idea. Candidates would campaign only in major cities... If you can take 70% of the vote in big cities like NYC, Chicago, LA, and Philly the election is basicaly over, there's nothing the other candidate can do regardless of how other areas of the country vote. We'd have candidates proposing laws that benefit urban areas, their domestic political platforms would be focused entirely on cities while people living in rural areas of the country would be renederd irrelevant, and policy would be shaped to reflect that. Lehigh claims candidates would visit states like Vermont and Maine?? Combined those states have a population under 2 million. NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly have a combined population over 16 million. If you were a candidate, where you be spending your campaing time and dollars?? The national vote idea works only when a population is spread out relatively evenly over an area, not when there are clusters of densely populated areas. 

Guys, I'm interested in the point of view that if we make the change, smaller states would find themselves ignored. What small states save New Hampshire and Nevada are current getting any attention or having their concerns addressed? Begolf has it right: In places Massachusetts there's no incentive for Republicans to vote in a presidential election, and frankly, not that much for Democrats, in that they know the tally will already be lopsided. In places like Texas, there's not much incentive for Repubicans to vote, for the same reason. Meanwhile, would we see dubious policy like steel tariffs if the intent weren't to court Ohio and Pennsylvania? Or an unfunded prescription drug benefit if Florida were't so important? Obviously there are trade offs, but when you evaluated them, look at all the problems with the current system. Should the election really be up to voters in Ohio and Florida? And Republicans, recall that if 65,000 or so votes in Ohio had gone the other way last time, George W. would have lost the presidency, but won the popular vote. Of course, in 2000, the opposite occurred. No matter what side you are on, that prospect is just not good for the country. Scot

Does this mean, if Massachusetts were to hinge on a popular vote, we might get free cellphones from Obama like Ohio?

Nice try, but no banana. The real problem is the electoral college itself.  The better plan would be to throw it out, and elect candidates based on an an actual counting of the popular vote. All your plan does is rig the present system in a way that makes it even less represntative of the will of the people.

Great idea... only if you are a Democrat.  You live in a constitutional federal republic, NOT a democracy!  Get used to it!

I do not often agree with Scott but this time I do. Were this plan in effect, we would have been spared eight years of W, not to mention actually becoming a democracy!

As I see it the fatal flaw in what Scot is suggesting is the potential implications of a nationwide recount if we ever had a repeat of 2000. It's not a stretch at all to suggest that a nationwide recount could quickly denigrate into civil war, and no I am not exaggerating.

While it's true that many states, including MA and TX are ignored, the real culprit is not the electoral college but MA and TX themselves (along with many other states). We would be a lot better off in MA with a viable GOP and TX would be a lot better off with a viable Democratic party. Permanent one party control is what enables situations such as we have in MA where three straight House speakers end up as convicted felons. MA and TX have no one to blame but themselves.

Irpy: But statistically, the potential for that kind of recount is vasly greater under the current system than it would be under a national system.

Lav: But this accomplishes the same thing, just without having to amend the Constitution. And if, by chance, it doesn't work well, you could easily go back to the old system, again without a constitutional amendment.

User: I don't discussion that posit an American Hitler are dealing in the world of realistic concerns.

Waytoo: Hey, am I mistaken, or are you fashioning real arguments today? Congrats, old boy. I knew you were capable of it. But here's the question: Even if you accept your premise -- and I think it's wrong -- do you think our current campaign is focusing on all of America? Or even the concerns of rural voters? Take NH. When the general election candidates visit, they aren't spending their time in the willywags. It's usually Manchester, sometimes Portsmouth. I think such a system would encourage candidates to do regular campaign swings in regions, rather than just hopscotching to swing states. Certainly if you came to Boston for a rally, you'd say, hey, let's hit Maine or New Hampshire or RI as well.

Scot

This is the current reality. I'm a reporter working on a small daily newspaper in Bowling Green, Ohio, a community of about 20,000. As the presidential campaign took shape we didn't wonder "what if Romney or Obama came to town?" Or even "maybe Romney or Obama will come to town." It was pretty much "when Romney and Obama come to town." The president was here this week; the former governor was here in July. The welcome mat's still out. And if they don't show up here, they're sure to pass through nearby Toledo. Every president since Reagan has come here, aside from George W. Bush, who did campaign in Perrysburg the next town over.

more horrible economic news: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-09-28/cue-stagflationary-recession-chicago-pmi-huge-sub-50-miss-back-september-2009-levels

Ohio: Not to put you on the spot, but do you think that, under the current system, there's perhaps a bit too much of a focus on the great state of Ohio? (Feel free to decline comment if you'd like.)