The Liberals/ Democrats are worried the expected losses in the November Elections will carry into 2012. Worried about losing the White House, they are secretly trying an end run on the Constitution and the Electorial College.
Currently, in a presidential election,we elect a number of people called Electors. They promise to go to the Electoral College and cast their ballots for the candidate that wins their individual state.
5 States have passed a new interpretation to the Constitution and the Electorial College. These states have decided their electors will be bound to vote for whichever candidate has the most popular votes nationally. They would ignore the winner of their state. These states are Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland and Washington State. The law is called the National Popular Vote Law. Several states are also considering passing the law, include California, New York and Massachusetts.
This would allow a few states to decide the election and the small states would effectively have no say. Their argument for this indicates it would guarantee every candidate would visit each state and not assume it will go to the other side. Further they argue the winner in popular votes should win the election regardless of the Electorial College. The real danger is a few states with large populations guaranteeing to deliver their votes to the party of their choice.
If you live in one of these states, you must contact your State Representatives and tell them to not change the way we elect the President. Tell your friends so they can also add pressure on the legislature. We must always remain on the alert. We cannot allow them to again circumvent the Constitution in order to stay in power.
A Patriot From Chowan 
Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts, successful candidates will continue to find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support . It would no longer matter who won a state.
Now the state-by-state winner-take-all laws awarding electoral votes, do not protect small states against large ones. Swing states dominate. In the 2008 election, both major presidential candidates spent 98% of their time and money in only 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI), and over 50% in just 4 (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Only 15 states out of 50 were in play. Only voters in those 15 got attention. Issues that play well in those 15 states get excessive focus. Voters in those 15 states have hugely disproportionate influence over who will be our President, while voters in 35 states have no influence on who their next President will be. Under National Popular Vote, swing states would lose their excessive power because all votes, in every state, would count equally.
Now the state-by-state winner-take-all Electoral College always ignores the smallest states (3-4 electoral votes). 12 of the 13 smallest states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. .Eight state legislative chambers in the smallest states have passed the bill. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
Of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections– NH(4), NM (5), and NV (5). These three states contain only 14 of the 22 (8%) states’ total 166 electoral votes.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However,,if anyone is concerned about this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
With National Popular Vote, big states, that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates’ attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split — five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey).
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down in name recognition as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004. A “big city” only campaign would not win.
21% of Americans live in rural areas, where candidates get the most bang for their buck/voters for TV ads.
Although all he states has merit- It is still a direct violation of peoples rights when the majority in a state votes for 1 candidate and the Electors vote for the other Candidate because he won the popular vote and were instructed to do so by the state legislator.
In addition- If you want to do away with the Electorial College do it through the Amendment process similar to what the nation did with the Amendment that allows direct elections od Senators. Folllow the Constitution do not do back door attempts to circumvent it
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district — a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
I understand what you are saying but the recent and all too often tampering with votes in the larger cities and states makes me feel your plan will only cause more illegal voting and the election process will further be corrupted. Dead people and felons voting, multiple voting, threats to voters in cities etc. all cause my concern.