I live in Sweden (no am NOT a socialist. At all.). I guess I believe in representative democracy, meaning that the government should be elected by a majority of voters. (Inherent in true democracy is, of course, minority protection.)

Because your great nation has a large impact on the rest of the world I am interested in the politics of your country. Your president is above all your face to the world and decides your foreign policy.

Some years ago, I read about the NPV on the web, and I thought it seemed a good idea. There's been a few years since I heard of it, but I now see that a minority of people seem to be vocally against it. Like you. However, it seems that most Americans like NPV when asked.

Now I ask you: what are your reasons for being against it?

I see some great advantages.

The proper way for the people to choose a president is to tally the votes on election day. If you believe in one person, one vote, you would prefer NPV to the current method(s). Do you think each state should choose? The current statewide winner-take-all system introduces a random element in the election which caused the crisis of 2000.

I know the constitution says that the electors are selected by the legislatures in each state. Do you think the president should be chosen by the people or by the state legislatures through the electors?

I read that framer Madison was much in favor of a national popular vote (he who wrote the Federalist papers), but he could not obtain a majority for his view at the convention, resulting in the system of state legislatures deciding electors. Still the NPV is something which is decided by state legislatures, so it seems in line with the constitution and with the 14th amendment. Since voters only have a right to vote for presidential electors and the state legislatures have the right to do what they please when selecting electors. No further lead is given in the constitution, so it seems the framers left this point open for improvement. Nixon and a majority of republicans tried make an NPV amendment in the 1970s but it was stopped (if I rememeber correctly) by some democrats in New York.

I believe that a system which counts all votes nationwide would improve Americans' feeling of participation in their government, and it would make election day something which would be meaningful for more people to participate in.

Electoral votes based on congressional district (as in Nebraska and Maine) seems even less agreeable than the more used statewide winner-take-all, because the congressional districts are carved out by partisan bodies, resulting in even more skewed representation.

The most important thing with democracy is that it gives us a nonviolent method of getting rid of bad leaders. The most popular leader is not necessarily the best, but if most people think so at election day, you'd have to endure him for 4 years. Then he can be outvoted. However, with this randomness of the statewide electoral vote-shifts it is less easy to achieve. Pandering to key voters in key states may be enough to stay in power. T

Let me add that I am of course in favor of voter ID. And all possible checks on voter fraud. But I am also in favor of methods which facilitate voting for those who have a right to vote. And I don't say that Gore should have been president in 2000 based on the national popular vote count, because that election was not performed under those premises.

However, it is a bit sad that those who now plan for the next election only talk about a winning few key states. They have no incentive in addressing people in big chunks of the union which are given to either candidate(northeast and west coast, the south, and large parts of the midwest).