First, it takes even more power away from the states. The Tenth Amendment isn't perfect, but at least be up front about wanting change it.

Second, it shifts even more power to population centers. Changing 1% of the vote of a million people is worth more than changing 10% of the vote of 10,000. Metropolitan areas might get a good look at every major candidate -- which is great for the national media, since they don't have to leave their air-conditioned offices to trudge to Iowa or New Hampshire -- but there is something to be said for getting a look at how candidates deal with people one-on-one and in small groups.

Third, it may extend state election debacles to the national level. Imagine Florida 2000 extended over the entire United States. At least with the current system, Oregon didn't have to recount her votes because of idiots on the other side of the country.

Fourth, it may also make national election fraud more attractive. Shifting the votes of a few percent on New York residents might not affect the electoral college at all, but it would have a very great impact if those votes were counted nationally.

Finally, if we are going to need a constitutional amendment anyway (and I think the national popular vote would be subject to constitutional challenges otherwise), it's not even the best method of ensuring that every vote counts. The best that can be said for it is that it throws less than half the votes away. If you want a *real* reform, take your reform wand and wave it over the Congress as well, and institute a national proxy vote. Every representative gets a voting power equal to the number of voters who vote for them, and they elect from their number a Speaker/Prime Minister/President/Whatever. Each voter's power is used in every vote, because his proxy is wielded by his representative. Leaders who get us involved in unnecessary wars can be voted out by the other representatives before a national election. With preference voting, you'd also have a definite order of succession (VP not needed), plus it would almost completely eliminate party politics.

I'm with you but I do have a question.

Why is it that so many folks bring up the point, to put it in your words, that having candidates trudge through Iowa or New Hampshire is a good thing? Not that its a bad thing, I just don't see it as an issue at all when discussing the electoral process.

Secondly, I don't see a need whatsoever for a constitutional amendment. Simply returning the power to the state legislatures serves that purpose....not to mention the immediate benefit of removing special interest money and divisive partisan sniping from the process.

Second, it shifts even more power to population centers. Changing 1% of the vote of a million people is worth more than changing 10% of the vote of 10,000. Metropolitan areas might get a good look at every major candidate -- which is great for the national media, since they don't have to leave their air-conditioned offices to trudge to Iowa or New Hampshire -- but there is something to be said for getting a look at how candidates deal with people one-on-one and in small groups.

I'm sorry, but your logic is terribly flawed.

How does this plan take power away from the states? States still would control when they hold primaries and more populous states already get the lions share of attention. Plus, in the grand scheme of things, 500,000 individual votes in South Dakota are worth more than their three electoral votes.

Second, according to the 2000 census, the population of the US is 79% urban, so candidates are already focusing on urban centers. Sure, when they visit swing states they get nice photo ops with farmers, but those stops are not purely for the benefit of the rural voter, they're very much targeted at the urban voters in the same state. In our current system, politicians have to focus on a few swing states, thus ignoring large urban areas like New York, California, and Texas because they know how those states will vote.

Third, if you will recall, the recount issues in Florida were extended to only a few counties with widespread problems, not the whole state. ANY county or precinct with alleged problems or fraud, no matter the circumstances, should have to recount their votes, so what happens in Florida will in no way cause votes to be recount in Oregon.

Fourth, voter fraud is actually quite uncommon. And counting all votes would not change the fact that there are democrat-leaning precincts and republican-leaning precincts. That's not going to change.

Finally, we're not going to have a Parliament anytime soon, so let's concentrate on making our system work. My solution is to forget the electoral college and just count every vote.

>How does this plan take power away from the states?

Because for it to work, every state must agree to it, and to prevent future defections, they must be prevented from changing their mind. If a state agreed to the national popular vote in this election, but saw itself as a battleground state in the next election, without a constitutional requirement they could easily change back to "state winner takes all." As we see with the rush for early primaries, we can assume states will act in their self-interest even if it puts their neighbors at a disadvantage.

>>Third, if you will recall, the recount issues in Florida were extended to only a few counties with widespread problems, not the whole state. ANY county or precinct with alleged problems or fraud, no matter the circumstances, should have to recount their votes, so what happens in Florida will in no way cause votes to be recount in Oregon.

The closeness of the Florida vote triggered an automatic machine recount of the entire state. In addition, Gore asked for a hand recount in Broward, Miami Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties. This of course was argued as unfair, since it was basically recounting heavily-Democratic districts. To quote Wikipedia:

At 4:00 p.m. EST on December 8, the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4 to 3 vote, ordered a manual recount, under the supervision of the Leon County Circuit Court and Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho, of disputed ballots in all Florida counties and the portion of Miami-Dade county in which such a recount was not already complete.

This was set aside by the Supreme court, but it would be the natural progression for a close national election.

>>Fourth, voter fraud is actually quite uncommon. And counting all votes would not change the fact that there are democrat-leaning precincts and republican-leaning precincts. That's not going to change.

In my opinion, part of the reason fraud is uncommon in Presidential elections is because you have to perpetuate it in several states at once (Well, okay, granted you can do so with a large battleground state, but you have a lot more flexibility with a national popular vote). With a close election, manipulating the votes of a large metropolitan area (Chicago, perhaps?) might be enough to swing the election.

>>Finally, we're not going to have a Parliament anytime soon, so let's concentrate on making our system work. My solution is to forget the electoral college and just count every vote.

Well, count every vote, then immediately throw about half of them away, since the losing side doesn't have a voice. A proxy system would make for a more representative -- and entertaining -- Congress, as you would have every popular viewpoint and opinion represented, and each person's vote would directly translate into the power of the person representing them. A Libertarian candidate might only get two percent of the vote, but that would be the equivalent of two Senate seats (and roughly nine seats in the House) in terms of political power. And hey, if you are going to be amending the Constitution anyway, you might as well do it right.

I have to take back one of my criticisms. If there were a way of ensuring that a person's vote wouldn't be manipulated or lost (like with Ronald L. Rivest's methods ThreeBallot, VAV, and Twin), and adding fictitious votes could easily be detected, then a national popular vote might be resistent to fraud. Throw in a few observers from neighboring states -- who would have an interest in making sure everything was aboveboard -- and it would be better than the paperless electronic methods.