Your web browser is out of date. Update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on this site.

Update your browser
Defending the Electoral College and the Constitution since 2009

what are you looking for?


States would lose under plan targeting Electoral College
Guest Author • Jul 27, 2014
Why are liberal partisans trying to change the rules for presidential elections? And why have some right-leaning legislators, even here in Oklahoma, jumped on board? Unsurprisingly, the answer to the first question goes back to Al Gore’s loss to George W. Bush in 2000.
Gore got the most individual votes, but his support was concentrated in big cities. With his voters more evenly distributed around the country, Bush won a majority of Electoral College votes and thus the presidency.
The Electoral College rewards candidates who have broad, national support. Presidential elections are really 51 separate elections, one in each state and in the District of Columbia. The Constitution gives each state the same number of electoral votes as it has members of the U.S. House and Senate (Oklahoma, with five House members plus two senators, has seven electoral votes). To win the presidency, a candidate must win a majority of electoral votes.
In the wake of the 2000 election, a wealthy Gore supporter from California named John Koza made it his mission to get rid of the Electoral College. He created a group and a plan, both called National Popular Vote (NPV).
Koza’s proposal is unique because it would leave the constitutional structure in place, but manipulate how it works in order to render it meaningless.

Read the rest at