(CA) Senate backs plan to give electoral votes to popular vote winner

[kskiska]

SACRAMENTO - California would cast its 55 Electoral College votes for the winner of the national popular vote under a bill designed to change the way the president is elected and increase the state's influence in national elections.

The bill, approved Tuesday by the Senate, would help draw candidates to the nation's most populous state for intensive campaigning, said Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, who carried the bill in the Senate.

California is a crucial stopover on presidential candidates' fundraising tours but often is otherwise ignored because it is considered to be safely Democratic.

The bill's supporters want candidates to pay more attention to California, rather than devoting most of their energies to a handful of swing states.

more…
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/15335555.htm

[Newsjock]

1. Democrats to California: We don't want your 55 electoral votes

This is beyond stupid. In this war we're in against the GOP, every last electoral vote counts, and yet here we are, willingly inviting the Republicans to take our electoral votes because they can get the vote out in Kansas.

California is reliably Democratic in the presidential election, and there's no danger of that changing. And here we want to put that up for grabs?

I swear, the Democrats really seem to have a death wish sometimes.

[pnwmom]

35. "I swear, the Democrats really seem to have a death wish sometimes."

You're not kidding.

[Lithos]

2. Stupid

So that means if I ignore California as a Republican, maximize my votes in another swing state, then I still can get California's electoral votes? Basically disenfranchises California's voters and gives their votes to everyone else in the nation.

And while it isn't law until 270 other votes kick in, it's still stupid.

L-

[evlbstrd]

3. I don't like the sound of this.

It's got to be unconstitutional. They are proposing denying the votes of Californians if the rest of the country goes another way.

[merwin]

11. The constitution says nothing about the method of determining how

electoral votes get cast. It is theoretically possible for a state to decide that their state congress will decide who the electoral votes go to, without any votes from the people.

The fact that our president isn't decided by popular vote makes our country NOT a true democracy.

If it was a true democracy, Al Gore would have been declared president because he won the popular vote.

[evlbstrd]

12. Then this is just another reason to fight.

One person, one vote is meaningless.

[toopers]

23. You are right, we are not a true democracy . . .

and we were never suppose to be a democracy!

[Lochloosa]

24. THANK YOU!

I get so frustrated trying to explain to people that we are a Representive Republic not a democracy.



A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

"A democracy the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

[Renew Deal]

30. It denies the votes of Californians regardless.

It's just dumb.

[Exiled in America]

4. It needs to be either all or nothing!

Either abolish the electoral college everywhere, or keep it the way it is.

[Biernuts]

21. A better way would require a candidate to win the electoral vote

in any district, then the overall state winner would get the two "senate" electoral votes.

[beyurslf]

5. Stupid but I believe Constitutional nonetheless.

Article II, Section 1

<2> Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

<http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/U/USConstTABLE.asp>

The state's legislature may choose its electors any way they want to. They could draw sticks if they chose to. That means they can give the electors to the person who wins the popular vote nationwide if they want to. The 12th amendment does not change how electors are chosen.

[Kagemusha]

9. I've no idea what the state constitution says though.

At the very least this would be extremely strenuously challenged since it effectively disenfranchises all voters in the state in a federal election.

Edit: Okay, their vote contributes to the net popular vote - but hell if it won't sound like what I just said above, to normal, real people.

[IndianaGreen]

6. The Electoral College should be abolished

It is an anachronism and it is undemocratic. The person that gets the most votes nationwide should be the one elected.

[Selatius]

7. If all states had this law on the books, Gore would be president

He probably would've won re-election in 2004.

[hedgehog]

8. It's a way of bypassing the Electoral College which gives too

much power to low population red states right now. Just compare the actuual population represented by the various members of the Senate. If votes were allocated according to population, the Democrats would have a firm majority in the Senate. As it stands, New York with 19 million people gets two votes in the Senate. So does Wyoming with 500,000 people. For comparison, I live in rural Oswego County in New York and we have 120,000 people. We could split New York into ten states and any one of them would be 4 times as large as Wyoming!

[krispos42]

18. That is why we have two houses in the legislature

And in the House, which is population-based, we're still behind.

The reason is because it keeps New York from pushing around Wyoming. Wyoming has lots of low-sulfur coal, for example, and New York might pass a federal railroad bill to move the coal to power stations in New York instead of Oregon.

What I'm trying to say is that on an individual basis, we have the Constitution to protect minority populations from the tyranny of the majority. A good thing since I'm male and outnumbered 52% to 48%.

On a state basis, we have the Senate, where all states are equal, to protect low-population states from the high-density states.

The electoral college keeps us from having what's happening in Mexico, namely, massive national recounts. We can focus on a few states that are close and recount those as needed.

It does give an edge to emptier states in the electoral college, it is true. I would note two things, however. One, that the emptier states often have large tracts of land and vast natural resources that do need representing. Two, you neglect New England. New England is disproportionally represented in the Senate. It is a very small area filled with people with similar political, historical, and geographical ties, yet is has one-eighth of the Senate power. If New England was a state, it would be about the same population as Illinois, and it would be the 18th largest state, between South Dakota (3 electoral votes) and Washington (11 electoral votes). New England would have 2 senators and 20 representatives. As it is now, it has 12 senators and 24 representatives. That's 36 electoral votes (13.3% needed to win the presidency) in an area the approximate size of Washington State.

I'm not saying the electoral college is perfect. I think we definately need a proportional allocation of electoral votes, and we need instant run-off voting to make third parties viable in the political arena. If we had the latter, all those damn Nader votes most likely would have been run-off to Gore, as well as the Palm Beach County Buchanan-but-I-meant-to-vote-for-Gore-omigod-that-ballot-is-weird votes.

I don't know how it would have changed the election if it was proportional. I'll leave that to the citizenry to figure it out, if they so desire.

[samsingh]

10. are these people morons? this doesn't help democrats

[w4rma]

14. Yes. Huge morons. There will be a huge benefit to stealing votes with this

law on the books. Republicans will have a major incentive to stuffing the ballot box in other states.

[w4rma]

13. Bad law. (nt)

[pnwmom]

15. This bill would give the state LESS attention, not MORE!

Are they nuts? Why bother campaigning in California at all, when the 55 votes would go to the NATIONAL winner? This makes no sense to me at all.

[merwin]

16. Actually, the focus will probably go to large metropolitan areas.

Reach more people that way.

[w4rma]

17. Then that won't change, because that's where the focus is now. (nt)

[krispos42]

19. This is the same state that proposed giving teens ½-votes

If you were 16 your vote would count as a half-vote in state and local elections.

I'm really thinking that maybe the General Assembly there needs to go to a part-time schedule. They have too much free times on their hands to be thinking of shit like this.

[rinsd]

26. That bill hasn't gotten past committee.

[SoCalDem]

20. How utterly stupid..

What we need is to dump the EC completely.. We don;t need it (never did)

More people might even vote if they actually thought their vote mattered.. How many democrats in Kansas don;t even bother to vote..or in Alabama, or any of the rattlesnake & tumbleweed states?

all we need is a paper ballot, and people to count them
phone to call in the numbers
and exit polls to "legitimize" the results..

How F'ing hard is that?

Once every other year we have an election.. It;s not like we have to do it every month.. It's not that complicated..
:grr:
K.I.S.S.

[apnu]

22. Look at this quote, what does it mean?

From TFA: "If it eventually becomes law, the legislation would take effect only if states with a combined 270 electoral votes - the number now required to win the presidency - also agreed to decide the election by popular vote."

Does that mean CA's 55 votes would be excluded from the 270? Meaning that a candidate must win 270 from the other 49? Or non populist states, as CO, IL, LA, and MO are considering this too.

That's nutty. I'm all in favor of getting rid of the EC, but this law not only sounds stupid but looks to completely exclude CA from the national election. Something, I expect all the GOP bastards want.

[Ravy]

31. Self delete- posted wrong place

[silverojo]

25. This is so idiotic!

Just because Bush lost the popular vote doesn't mean EVERY Repuke is going to. This is a good way to turn California red. :mad:

And WTF is this nonsense about attracting candidates to CA for more intensive campaigning? They practically camp there, as it is!!

[Ken Burch]

36. Only in the primaries.

After the convention, Kerry and Bush basically just went to the same ten farm states over and over and over and over and over and...
well, you get the idea. It's time we stop punishing voters for the crime of living in populous states.

This is a stupid bill. A better idea would have been to push for proportionality, which any Democratic controlled legislature in a presidentially Red state should be doing as well. If the South were casting its electoral votes proportionally, the votes of African American southerners would finally matter just as much as the votes of white southerners.

It would also mean that there would be no reason for the DLC to exist, but would that really be a problem?

[Nikki Stone 1]

27. Horrible idea. Californians should write their reps. Find your rep at:

http://www.legislature.ca.gov/port-zipsearch.html

[Nikki Stone 1]

28. I just called my assembly member

Voting nay.

Don't know how much it will do, but at least they will know that someone is aware. The person who answered the phone didn't have a clue about the legislation.

[Renew Deal]

29. So California voters have no say in the presidential election?

Is that what that means? That's obsurd.

[pnwmom]

34. Good way of putting it. And it sounds absurd to me, too.

[Charlie Brown]

32. I think the voters of California should decide who gets their state

I can't believe there are "Democrats" anywhere who feel otherwise.

[Ravy]

33. We just need to form a 271 EV "blue consortium"....

And push for legislation that whoever wins the popular vote in *just those* states gets all the electoral votes from all those states.

This way, Democrats would only have to campaign in 12 states or so, saving the party much of the time and expense of a campaign. They could forget the other 38 states entirely, since winning the popular vote of those 12 states will be enough to ensure the presidency.

The 12 states could then be showered with the gratification of the administration, and the other 38 states could just suck ass, since someone even getting 100% of the votes there could not possibly undermine our lock on the presidency.

The smaller states would "beg" to get into our consortium, but we just don't let them, because a) why share the spoils of victory with some pissy-ant state, b) it may water down our Democratic vote, and c) we would have to campaign and spend money there, and d) we just don't need 'em at all.

Granted, we would have a tough time getting legislation through the Senate, but *eventually* we could pack the court and other offices by just never nominating a conservative for *anything* and make liberal (pun) use of recess appointments where applicable. After we get the court packed, then we can start using Executive Order for everything, and just send the Senate home to do BBQs and whatever else they might be good at.

I realize the California legislation had *generously* decided to use all 50 state's popular vote when deciding to allocate their electoral votes... but what is to stop us from changing that to where only members of our "blue consortium" count.

Hope the Republicans never think of this.

Who is with me????


Note: this post is not entirely sarcasm, it is pointing out a real danger to America that *could* happen.

[krispos42]

37. That would have given Bush California in 2004

I'm pretty sure that is not what the voters of California wanted when they voted Kerry/Edwards over Bush/Cheney by a ratio of over 6:5