susan e of Mountain View, CA The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.comreport abuse

susan e of Mountain View, CA The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.report abuse

Seriatim of Solon, ME This is my test:

Obama and McCain, for all of their differences, are both professional and could handle the duty of President. If either died or was incapacitated (which is, unfortunately, quite possible due to either McCain's age or the racist extremeists against Obama), the vice-president would take over. Biden vs. Palin, who do you feel would be able and qualified to take up the reins? That made my choice very easy, before even looking at other issues. It is something a lot of voters seem to overlook...report abuse

BettyD of Waterville, ME Try this site: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/factcheckactioncenter/

McCain didn't bother to fight back like this in his campaign against Bush a few years ago, when Bush's pals spread a rumor that McCain had fathered a little dark-skinned girl out of wedlock. McCain didn't fight back--he didn't say that he and his wife had ADOPTED that child from another country. And he lost the race.

After that, McCain could have decided that he himself would always take the high road.

But he is actually using the same smear-spreaders against Obama that Bush used against McCain!

Thank God Obama is fighting back.report abuse