Imagine a presidential election in which every voter is relevant no matter where that voter lives. Presidential candidates campaign in red states, blue states, rural areas, urban areas and suburban areas. A vote for the Democratic candidate in Mississippi counts just like a vote for the Republican candidate in Illinois. One person truly equals one vote.

And the president of the United States of America governs for the entire United States of America, not just the swing states of America.

That is the future of our presidential elections if the nation adopts a national popular vote.

Coloradans should vote yes on the national popular vote this fall to make sure all of their voices are heard in future presidential elections.

Today’s Electoral College doesn’t do that. Instead, the current winner-take-all system gives 100% of Colorado’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who gets the most popular votes in Colorado, while giving nothing to other candidates. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won 1.3 million votes and therefore won all of Colorado’s electors. Donald Trump won 1.2 million votes and other candidates won 238,000 votes. None of those other votes resulted in any electors from Colorado.

Take any of the 48 states that have a winner-take-all system and the result is the same. The votes of millions of Americans are simply tossed aside like they didn’t even happen.

We’ve heard from partisans who currently oppose the idea of one person, one vote that enacting a national popular vote will mean Colorado – in particular rural parts of Colorado – will be ignored. This claim fails for many reasons.

First, it incorrectly assumes Colorado will receive any attention at all from the presidential candidates during the 2020 general election. We enjoyed swing state status during the last three presidential elections but not anymore. Colorado has now joined over 40 other states as “flyover” territory because the candidates know who will win here. One of many analysts acknowledging that fact was columnist Ashley Herzog who recently wrote in RedState, “no credible political analysts, be they Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, peg the Centennial State as a truly competitive, battleground state in this year’s presidential election.”

Second, just like in any statewide election, it would be folly for presidential candidates to just focus on a big metro areas. The votes to win are simply not there. The Denver metro area accounts for 51% of Colorado’s population. That means 49% of Coloradans live outside of Denver metro. No credible statewide candidate in Colorado (including presidential candidates who wanted to win Colorado during our swing state years) has short-changed areas outside of the Denver metro area. In fact, slightly more than 49% of the presidential campaign events Colorado in 2012 and 2016 were outside metro Denver. When every vote in every state matters, the presidential candidates will have to campaign everywhere in order to win – just like statewide candidates already do in Colorado.

Partisan opponents have raised the scary picture of California and New York dominating a nationwide election under National Popular Vote. However, the facts are that these two states together contain only 18.3% of the U.S. population, voted only 61% for Clinton in 2016, and gave Clinton a margin of 6,007,000 votes. However, there is a counter-balancing group of red states in the south-central part of the country with 18.7% of the U.S. population, that voted 60% for Trump in 2016, and gave Trump a slightly larger margin of 6,038,000 votes. California and New York cannot dominate a nationwide election any more than this equally populous group of red states could. Either way, 18% is a lot less than the 50% necessary to win an election.

And, in contrast to the claim that the national popular vote is merely a reaction to the last election, the idea is far from new. In 1979 both of Colorado’s U.S. senators, Democratic Sen. Gary Hart and Republican Sen. William Armstrong, supported a national popular vote for president. Republican U.S. Sen. Bob Dole from Kansas said in support of a national popular vote during the 1979 debate:

“Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large cities. That, to me, is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance. Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in states that are perceived to be single-party states.”

The first National Popular Vote interstate agreement was passed in 2007 in Maryland. The National Popular Vote agreement simply changes the way each member state’s electors are allocated under that state’s constitutional authority to ensure the presidential candidate that wins the most votes nationwide actually wins the election.

Since then, fourteen other states and Washington, D.C. have signed on. Those states have been small, medium sized, and large. The National Popular Vote is now 74 electoral votes shy of being enacted. Colorado became part of the agreement in 2019 and Colorado voters have a chance to approve that decision during this November’s election.

The National Popular Vote is the way to make sure every vote matters and every voter is relevant in our only country-wide election. Presidential candidates should care about all Americans, not just those in swing states. Vote yes on the National Popular Vote ballot measure this fall.

Mike Foote is a state senator representing District 17 and working with the Yes on National Popular Vote campaign.