CAPITAL REGION — Over the past 200 years, more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to change or eliminate the Electoral College. According to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, there have been more proposals for constitutional amendments to change the Electoral College than any other subject, but none have found traction.

Several groups have renewed the effort to change how we elect our presidents, but they are taking a new tack.

They are pushing states to sign on to the National Popular Vote bill, which doesn’t abolish the Electoral College but still guarantees the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Under the bill, states would sign a compact agreeing to award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote, regardless of what voters at home do.

“Basically, it’s one person, one vote,” said Judy Middelkoop, who is co-chairing the League of Women Voters of Schenectady County’s National Popular Vote committee.

In the U.S., presidents are elected through the Electoral College rather than a popular vote. Under this system, the winning candidate in a state gets all of that state’s electoral votes, which is why presidential candidates, who need 270 out of 538 electoral votes to win, spend most of their energy campaigning in “swing states” where the outcome is in doubt, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

studying the problem

At the League of Women Voters’ June 2008 convention in Portland, Ore., delegates adopted a fast-track study of the National Popular Vote bill. This means that league chapters throughout the country, including here in the Capital Region, are beginning to research the bill, with the goal of examining the pros and cons and coming to a consensus about whether it is worthy of the League’s support.

The study’s title is “The Advisability of Using the National Popular Vote Compact Among the States as a Method for Electing the President.”

The Electoral College “is not a good system,” said Lori Dawson, a member of the League of Women Voters of Saratoga County who pushed the League to take a look at the National Popular Vote bill at the June convention. “It creates this red state, blue state phenomenon that doesn’t really exist.”

She said League members who run voter registration drives often hear young voters say they have no intention of voting because their vote doesn’t count. A National Popular Vote, she said, would change that. “No one could say that their vote doesn’t count,” she said.

Middelkoop said the National Popular Vote bill does not conflict with the League’s position that the Electoral College should be abolished and predicted that the League would come out in support of the bill. “It’s a very cut-and-dry issue,” she said.

The Electoral College came under scrutiny after the 2000 election, which was decided when the Supreme Court ruled that George W. Bush won the election, despite losing the popular vote. But Middelkoop noted that the League’s support for abolishing the Electoral College is nothing new and that in 1970, 1982 and 2004 the group issued position statements voicing its support for electing the president by direct popular vote.

The National Popular Vote is a nonprofit organization, based in California, that was formed two years ago. Since then, staff have been traveling from state to state, educating residents about the merits of the National Popular Vote bill.

“Under the current system, most states are bystanders in the presidential election,” said John Koza, chairman of the National Popular Vote. “Candidates fashion their campaigns around the interests of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.”

The Electoral College has its defenders, who say it helps protect the interests of more rural states. Earlier this summer, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby noted that none of the previous efforts to abolish or alter the Electoral College have been successful, “an indication, perhaps, of the existing system’s enduring value.” He wrote, “We are a national of states, not of autonomous citizens, and those states have distinct identities and interests, which the framers were at pains to protect.”

up to the states

The National Popular Vote bill would only take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes.

So far, four states — Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey and Maryland — have enacted the National Popular Vote bill. Those states possess 50 electoral votes, or 19 percent of the 270 necessary to bring the bill into effect.

In New York, the National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in both the Assembly and the Senate.

The Constitution mandated the Electoral College system but gave states the power to allocate electoral votes any way they choose, Koza said. “The winner-takes-all-rule, which is what we’re trying to change, that rule is not in the Constitution,” Koza said. “The current system is not a choice of the founders, and it’s not in the Constitution, although many people think that it is.” He noted that two states, Nebraska and Maine, award electoral votes based on congressional districts.

Polls indicate that about 70 percent of the public supports getting rid of the Electoral College. The problem, Koza said, is that “we’re dealing with inertia. There are a lot of issues that 70 percent of the public supports, but nothing happens.”

But he said he’s upbeat about the prospects of the National Popular Vote bill. Though there’s no chance of changing the system in time for this election, the group believes it can achieve its goal by 2012.

In the Electoral College, each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in the House and Senate.