The year was 2000, and the presidential election was a tight race. George W. Bush was running on the Republican ticket, and Al Gore was his Democratic opponent. Gore took home 48.4 percent of the national popular vote, but Bush, with 47.9 percent, won the presidency; Ralph Nader placed a distant third. Bush won because he received more electoral votes than Gore.

The way the current system works is such: whoever wins the highest amount of popular votes in a state automatically wins all of the state's electoral votes.

"It doesn't matter if you win with 51 percent of votes, or 90," explained Ryan O'Donnell, regional director of the National Popular Vote campaign. "You'll get all of that states electoral votes."

So even if the combined total of popular votes a candidate receives exceeds that of his opponent, he could still lose the race, as Gore did. According to the National Popular Vote committee, this needs to change.

Throughout history, four presidential candidates have won the popular vote but lost the race. It first happened in 1824, when Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost to John Quincy Adams. It happened again in 1876 when Samuel Tilden received less electoral votes but more popular votes than Rutherford B. Hayes. And in 1888, Benjamin Harrison won the election over Grover Cleveland, despite the popular vote.

The Electoral College grew out of a compromise between two methods of presidential election: direct popular vote and election by Congress. Early in history, direct popular vote was opposed because there were no political parties, and general disorganization and lack of national communication could leave a viable candidate in the dust. Election by Congress was tricky, too, because it would require each state's representatives to accurately convey their people's votes.

Ultimately, something between these two options was adopted. Dubbed "Electoral College," a certain number of electors are designated for each state. They are chosen in various ways, dependant upon the state, in the months leading up to Election Day. The number of electoral votes a state has is the same number of senators and representatives it has in the U.S. Congress. Because the most populist states have the highest numbers of representatives, they also hold the highest number of electors. Rhode Island, therefore, has four electoral votes. The national total of electoral votes is 538. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win.

According to the National Popular Vote initiative, polls in support of this legislation have been positive.

"Public support of this idea has been between the high 70 percentile and low 80 for about 100 years," said O'Donnell.

Legislation is support of election by popular vote was drafted in 2005 and passed in Maryland in 2007. Since then, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington, Hawaii and Washington, D.C. have hopped on the bandwagon.

Christopher Reilly, a local advocate of the initiative, said he hopes the legislation will be passed by the end of this year.

"There are two pieces of legislation, one in the House and one in the Senate, that have had hearings that went very well."

O'Donnell compared the initiative to the Women's Suffrage movement, though the Constitution doesn't need to be amended in this case.

As it stands, the Constitution gives the power to the states. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner that the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…." In fact, in the first presidential election in 1789, only three states used the policy that is in affect today.

Right now, the seven states that have approved the national Popular Vote Legislation contribute 74 electoral votes. In order to win the majority of elector votes, a presidential candidate must receive at least 270. The new policy of electing a president through the popular vote would not go into affect until enough states sign on to total 270 electoral votes.

In essence, the legislation is a state law and a multi-state compact that would guarantee the most electoral votes to the president who secures the most popular votes.

O'Donnell thinks this will not only quiet grumbles over elections like that of 2000 but also ensure fairer campaign tactics.

"Our country is divided into swing states and safe states," he said, "And both parties only go to a small number of states. The day after mid-term elections they're already saying who will win which state. So 15 states get 98 percent of campaigners' money and attention. They may have a fundraiser in Rhode Island, but they'll export all of that money to campaigning in Pennsylvania."

Erin Lynch (D–District 31, Warwick) said that the measure would give Rhode Island a bigger national voice.

"Rhode Island is a small state, and big candidates don't often come here to campaign. We get passed over. This will bring us back into play."

The change in legislation is not new to Rhode Island. In 2008 the House and the Senate passed the bill, but Governor Carcieri vetoed it. Now, with the support of Governor Lincoln Chafee, O'Donnell and Reilly hope this year they'll have better luck.

"Under a national popular vote, each vote would count," said Governor Chafee in a statement. "Each voter would be equal, and the candidate with the most votes would be the winner. This is the case in every other American election, and it should be the case in the presidential election."

"Now is an excellent time to reflect on just how marginalized Rhode Island is," said O'Donnell, "We've perfected our message and learned about some concerns, and we've learned what's persuasive."

Senator Lynch is working to help get the bill passed locally. She said that it has already been heard in judiciary and that everyone served in favor. It will be put on the calendar for vote at a later date, but she expects it will be passed as it has in previous years.

Lynch has had firsthand experience with the significance of the popular vote. During her election for the Senate she won by nine votes.

"I'm critically aware of the importance of every vote," she said. "I think it's important in light of the past couple presidential elections and has been brought to the public's attention, especially in the Gore and Bush race. Every vote counts, and this will be a way to ensure that."

O'Donnell said that opposition to the bill has been largely due to misinformation.

"It deserves to be debated in a higher plane. Some states have to debate it for more than one year. But we've got the Constitution and public opinion on our side."

According to the most recent polls conducted in 2008, 74 percent of Rhode Island voters are in favor of passing the bill.

As for when there will be enough states on board to move forward with the process of electing a president through popular vote, it is hard to say.

"It could be in time for the 2012 election, or 2016," said O'Donnell, "People want this so badly. It seems like a no-brainer. I think the states are going to come around."