Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What's wrong with the current system?
A: There are many complains with the current system. One of the biggest complaints is that our system makes it possible to become president without winning the majority of votes nationwide--which has happened four times throughout history. This is mainly possible because of the two electoral votes all states get--regardless of size--representative of their seats in the Senate. This means that small states get proportionately greater representation than they would under a population based system. For example, those extra two votes result in Wisconsin having three times more representation while a large state like California gets less than a 4% increase in representation which means that out of all electoral votes Wisconsin has 243% of the representation they would have otherwise while California has only 84% of the representation they would have otherwise--a 16% decrease. Another complaint about the Electoral College system is that it puts the bulk of the focus on a few "swing states" and isolates voters in heavily Republican or Democratic states that support the other party. These voters have little to no incentive to vote because their state's electoral votes will consistently go to the other party and thus are fairly insignificant. The representation these voters will be provided through the SAFE Plan's popular vote element will provide strong incentive for these voters to turnout. Another aspect of this element is that it will make votes in all states equally important, not just those in swing states.

Q: So many other proposals have failed to get through Congress. What makes this one any different?
A: So many plans have failed before because, although almost everyone in Congress realizes the current system has significant flaws, many legislators feel than a national popular vote is a worse idea because of the associated risks. The flaws with both system have prevented any plan from getting enough of a bipartisan and collective base of support to pass. The SAFE Plan maintains the benefits of both system without the associated disadvantages, thus making it the ideal system.

Q: Multiple states have already passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. What's wrong with that?
A: Aside from the problems with any direct popular vote system already explained below, there is another more technical problem with the NPV Plan. Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution provides that "no state shall enter into an agreement or compact with another state" without direct approval of Congress. This makes the NPV Plan unconstitutional; just look at the name. Why couldn't it just get congressional approval? The same reason that the hundreds of other national popular vote amendment proposals haven't suceeded--the pros of national popular vote do not outweigh the cons as far as Congress is concerned.

Q: Okay, well what's wrong with other popular vote systems?
A: Popular vote systems put the stability of our current two-party system at risk. Essentially, by eliminating the "winner-take-all" state-by-state nature of the current system, it becomes far easier for third-party candidates to win small segments of each state and prevent any candidate from winning an absolute majority. This is bad for one of two reasons: it either prevents the president from establishing a large and wide-spread base of support or it places far too much power in the hands of too few by giving minority parties "make-or-break" power (through endorsements) in a close election.

Q: Isn't that already a problem? I thought we've already had third-party spoilers?
A: Although it can be argued that some third-party candidates have won enough support to prevent a candidate with a similar agenda from winning the election, under a direct popular election this problem grows exponentially. Under proportional representation systems like a direct popular election, third-party candidates can gather enough proportionately allotted votes to prevent an absolute majority (as explained above). The winner-take-all nature of the current system (and the proposed system) largely prevents this problem because to win any electoral votes a candidate must win at least one state which is something third-parties fail to accomplish. The small, isolated instances where third-parties have interfered with our elections up until this point pales in comparison with the power they would have under a proportional representation system.

Q: What's wrong with third-parties? Why is a two-party system so good?
A: Under the two-party system, third-parties lack viability and are prevented from truly wreaking havoc. However, these minority parties are very valuable because they serve as a way for more radical ideas to gain traction and be adopted by one of the two major parties. This provides for both a stable and effective government. Cynicism aside, America's government is much more stable than those of many European democracies whose governments can be brought to a halt by a select few members of a small, single-issue political party.

Q: Won't this hurt small states?
A: One argument for keeping the current system is that it protects the "interests of small states." Well that may have been an original reason for the increased representation of small states, in this day and age small states are no longer at risk of being taken over or abused by larger states. In other words, what "interests" of small states are at risk by eliminating their artificially increased representation? And if the reason for giving smaller states representation that is disproportionately high compared to their population isn't to protect these non-existent "interests," then isn't it unfair?
Furthermore, if smaller states are worried about unfair treatment, the primary threat wouldn't come from the Executive Branch, it would come from the Legislative Branch--where small states still have just as many votes in the Senate as every other state.
Regardless, twelve out of the thirteen least populous states are non-competitive. These states would actually undergo a net gain in significance. Under the SAFE Plan, these states will once again be significant because the popular vote aspect--created by the re-allocation of two of their electoral votes--now provides an incentive for candidates to campaign for votes in previously "throw away" states.

Q: If you are against the Electoral College, doesn't that mean that you are against the Senate?
A: No. Actually, this system holds onto the ideals of the Senate. The Senate gives equal representation to all states regardless of size or other factors. Under the SAFE Plan it won't matter which state you live in; all votes, regardless of the location from which they originate, will count equally towards the popular vote. This fits in seamlessly with the ideals that the Senate represents; the size, political leanings, or other factors of the state in which you reside do not affect the amount your vote counts. Yet by preserving the electoral votes given to each state representative of their seats in the House, states still receive representation based on population, therefore upholding the ideals that the House represents.