Electoral College

The Electoral College issue was put on inactive status. The Live Free or Die Alliance is monitoring any new developments in regard to this issue; any new information will be posted here. If you have new information regarding the issue please post it in our town hall or forward it to info@livefreeordiealliance.com

In the 2000 presidential election, Democrat Al Gore received 50,999,897 votes; Republican George Bush received 50,456,002. In the Electoral College count, however, Bush tallied 271 to Gore's 266 and Bush became the president.

Today, there's a move afoot by states to essentially bypass that Electoral College process.

The National Popular Vote bill will award a state's Electoral College votes to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally, not the candidate who wins the state.

The Electoral College is made up of 538 electors from the all of the states. New Hampshire has four of those electors.

Our presidential election is actually an "indirect election" in that we're voting for electors within a state, who are the authorized constitutional participants in a presidential election.

The candidate who wins the vote in a state wins the electors.

Supporters of the National Popular Vote bill point to the 2000 election as evidence of the indirect vote problem, they say the the current Electoral College system is confusing and causes candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states with high elector counts, such as Florida.

According to the National Popular Vote website, five states have enacted it into law: Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland (The Massachusetts Legislature recently passed a version. It's awaiting the governor's signature).

Once states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.

Critics of the bill say it would create even more confusing scenarios than exist now: For example, a candidate can win nationally, but the opponent wins in New Hampshire. In that case, the state's four electoral votes would go to the national-winning candidate who was not supported by Granite State voters.

New Hampshire considered the measure in 2009 in HB 417, and it was deemed inexpedient to legislate and was killed by the House.

Should the Legislature look at the measure again? Is the Electoral College system broken, or do you think it should stay just as it is?