Group Pushes Electoral College Reform A group called FairVote has launched a campaign to reform the Electoral College system, saying presidential election results should rely on the nationwide popular vote rather than the outcome in a handful of swing states. The group’s plan would also eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 ballots, but lost the election in the Electoral College after George Bush narrowly won the popular vote in Florida and all of its 25 electoral votes. In 2004, President Bush won the popular vote by 3 million ballots, but would have lost the election if John Kerry had carried Ohio. Previous attempts to change the Electoral College by amending the Constitution have failed in Congress, so FairVote and its allies in the National Popular Vote campaign seek to change laws through individual state legislatures. Proponents want to persuade legislatures in states representing at least 270 electoral votes – the number needed to win the presidency – to pass laws requiring those states to give all of their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins a majority of the national popular vote. The U.S. Constitution leaves it up to the states to choose how they allocate their votes.
I don't buy this being a non-partisan measure. After all, when Bill Clinton won both of his presidential elections, he never owned a majority of the popular vote. Yet, despite that fact, little to no noise was made by anyone about changing the Electoral College. Now after all the noise they made after the '00 presidential elections due to their often deranged belief in conspiracy theories, liberals are still trying to betray the public's trust by making it sound like they're so concerned about the popular vote. Thank God it'll never happen because most members of Congress are not liberals.
The Electoral College works because it gives smaller states like Rhode Island more of a say in what happens during Presidential elections. It works as a compromise of the popular vote in conjunction with the rights of states. Otherwise states with more people could always bully a smaller state and people in smaller states would not receive equal representation. In other words, the forefathers knew what they were doing and the system as it is works just fine.