<span>The National Popular Vote bill is
the realistic alternative for how we elect the President. It is 61% of
the way to going into effect.
By state laws, without changing
anything in the Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill would
guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the
presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the
country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral
votes in the enacting states.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in
presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue
state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a
handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more
important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are
just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states
possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538. All of the
presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of
the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50
states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral
College majority.
The
bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the
Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for
President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding
electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the
method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that
only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current
state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state
legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported
the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the
presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate
state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support
for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and
Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state
surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed,
overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in
small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other
states polled. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small,
medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes –
61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. </span>
Supporting points are: Help the disadvantaged,support the underdeveloped nations humanitarian departments such as health and security,help integrate the people into the global economy, especially through educational initiative.It is in line with the moral majority, and christian doctrines of humanity.Can help eradicate human rights abuses as aid is tied to such demands
AgainstMost of the funds get into a few african elites hands anyway Redirecting tax payers money into other nation is morally wrong.It defeats the essence of rationality, as the country gets little benefit by giving out the aid.
