If every college student in American voted, they would make up roughly 15% of votes in any given presidential election. ^{(1) (2)} Yet students can’t vote together as a bloc on issues they care about, because they’re spread across all 50 states.

Presidents campaign to win slim margins in a small number of battleground states, and ignore many critical issues along the way, including ones that are of the most interest to younger voters. National Popular Vote would allow students across the country to make their voices heard in presidential elections.

Yes. The older voting bloc has been incredibly influential in presidential elections and national politics. The older voting bloc will not be affected by issues that arise in 30-50 years, and sometimes they vote with that in mind. National politics should prioritize long term success, not short-term gains. A strong national coalition of students under National Popular Vote would enhance the influence of young voters and help shift presidential initiatives away from the short-sighted interests of the older voting populous.

Yes. National Popular Vote is a reform of the electoral college, by changing how states vote in the electoral college we can achieve a direct election of the U.S. President as soon as 2024. The Constitution clearly states that how electors are awarded is an explicit power of the states in Article II, Section I: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”

The 13 states with only three or four electoral votes are the most disadvantaged and ignored group of states under the current state-based winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. Ohio has about the same population as 12 of these states combined, but fewer than half of their electoral votes. Despite that, Ohio received 73 of 253 general election campaign events in 2012, while the 12 small non-battleground states received none. ⁽³⁾

Yes. Candidates solicit every vote that matters and under a National Popular Vote every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election. In the 2012 general election campaign for President, four out of five states were completely ignored. Obama campaigned in only eight states after his nomination, and Romney campaigned in only ten. There is simply no benefit for a presidential candidate to spend limited campaign time and money visiting, advertising in, and building a grassroots organization in a state in order to win that state with 58% of its popular vote as compared to 55%. Similarly, it does not help a presidential candidate to lose a state with 45% of a state’s popular vote as compared to, say, 42%. National Popular Vote makes it so that more votes from anywhere in the country are relevant to all candidates’ campaigns. ⁽⁴⁾