A Vote to Quit the Electoral College (CA - Bill Before Gov)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-legis31aug31,1,888714.story

Lawmakers sent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill Wednesday that would make California the first state to jump aboard a national movement to elect the president by popular vote.

Under the legislation, California would grant its electoral votes to the nominee who gets the most votes nationwide — not the most votes in California. Get enough other states to do the same, backers of the bill say, and soon presidential candidates will have to campaign across the nation, not just in a few key "battleground" states such as Ohio and Michigan that can sway the Electoral College vote.

"Frankly, the current system doesn't work," said Assemblyman Rick Keene (R-Chico), the only Republican to vote for the bill. "Presidential candidates don't bother to visit the largest state in the nation…. California is left out."

If Schwarzenegger signs the bill — AB 2948 by Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Anaheim) — California will be the first state to embrace the "national popular vote" movement, though legislation is pending in five other states: New York, Illinois, Missouri, Colorado and Louisiana.

The California legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes — a minimum of 11 states, depending on population.

[hedgehog]

1. Ha! The Republican machine won't know where to tamper with

the votes. They'll have to hit every precinct in the nation.

[w4rma]

2. No. They'll be able to hit *any* precinct in the nation. (nt)

[cascadiance]

3. Just make sure that we don't give up winner takes all here in California..

... until ALL of the country is made to be voted by popular vote. If part of some drummed up "transition" that might come up is for California first to go to dividing up its delegates by vote percentage while the rest of the country is still "over represented" and winner take all still used in Red states, we WILL get screwed. Winner take all in the populous and blue states like California, New York, etc. are the only things that are keeping us close to being even with the Rethuglicans. Without it, we'd get screwed now.

That being said, if we can get a national vote where every vote is equal, I'm all for moving to that. Just NO transitions that some yokel in Congress along with Schwarzenegger might "compromise" on. We especially can't afford that in 2008!

[bemildred]

5. The law takes effect only when there are enough states onboard to win.

[Skink]

54. Let the Party of W stay in power for now. We need the House.

then the Senate.
If CA were to do this even if things get messed up enough states will see the benefit and do this.

[Egnever]

4. Hmm

While I think there are definitely problems with the current system I am not sure that this is a good idea. The electoral college is there to help protect the rights and issues of states against the tyranny of the majority. While it may not be working as well as it might be at the moment. Resorting to majority rule also has its issues.

Why california would want to be first in this is beyond me anyway. They are a blue state and this bill has the potential to make them go red against the will of the majority of their voters. if say they were the only ones to do this it has the potential to throw a tight election against the Dem's in a reversal of bushes win.

[endarkenment]

9. "the rights and issues of states against the tyranny of the majority"

That actually sounds reasonable until you examine its meaning. 'states' are geographical regions. 'the majority' refers to people. A quick read would lead one to believe that the electoral college protects minorities against the 'tyranny of the majority' when instead it has demonstrably enabled a tyranny of sparesly populated regions over the densely populated urban regions of this nation. It is the Jesusland phenomena we all became so acutely aware of in 2004.

We long ago discarded the quaint post-colonial concept of a union of states. That ended in 1865. The original intention of the electoral college was that the electors would be the elites of the nation (i.e. white landed quasi-aristocrats) who would meet and decide who among them ought to be president. The electoral college obfuscation of the election of the executive branch lingers on because it has served the purposes of the kleptocracy well for almost 150 years.

The myth that this clunker of a process protects us from tyranny, while we are sitting here in a tyranny, is absurd.

[Egnever]

16. Like I said

Its not perfect it has its problems. However doing away with it entirely for a majority rule only type of election also has problems.

Can you not envision an election where only the interests of the major cities are represented ignoring all the issues of the small towns spread far and wide across the country simply because of the population densities of the large metropolitan areas? While this may or may not produce results you might like it would in my opinion have a serious potential of completely removing large portions of americans from representation.

While it may be chic to say the electoral college is a "clunker" Reality is it has only gone against the popular vote a couple of times in all the elections we have had in the history of this country. These times may or may not be a problem I think that is a debatable.

Again I am not trying to say the electoral college is perfect It definitely should be looked at very closely. However doing away with it simply to go to a majority only vote is problematic also in my opinion.

[endarkenment]

This only affects the executive branch.

The president is the leader of all of the people not of all of the states. Minority rights are protected by the constitution. Regional rights are far more than adequately represented by the senate. What we have now is a tyranny of the minority.

[Egnever]

36. I doubt that can be supported considering

that the republicans hold a majority both houses. Where you to be correct the Dem's would hold power in congress. I don't like who is currently in power however arguing that they got there by being the minority is clearly not true.

At this point in time they may be the minority but is exactly this ability to sway the masses so easily that led to the creation of the electoral college in the first place. Today the masses agree with you yesterday they didn't. The idea was to instill a little more stability into the system.

I am not saying it is a good system or that it is working as intended and I am all for reviewing it and improving on it. I am not however anywhere near interested in chucking it out purely for majority rule. Sorry the masses more than proved their stupidity to me when 70% of them believed
Iraq had something to do with 9-11.

No I would prefer a solution that goes to putting further checks on majority rule rather than reinforcing it.

[endarkenment]

45. The House is held by gerrymandering districts. See Texas.

Look I am not saying that direct elections of the president guarantees a Democratic president, I'm saying that (ignoring fraud) it guarantees that the president got more votes than anyone else. Gore won the popular vote in 2000, Stupid might have won it in 2004. I'm willing to take my chances with convincing the american people, all of the american people, to vote for our guy instead of theirs. You aren't. Oh well.

I'm also strongly in favor of instant runoff elections with the result that the winner actually gets a majority of the votes. That however would require a constitutional amendment, the California initiative would not, and is in my opinion a step in the right direction.

[ldf]

55. some things can be voted on, some not.

the original (2000) electoral college fiasco (based on stolen state elections) that we may, or may not live through, is plenty reason to scrap the electoral college. it may not happen often, but the repercussions this time around are going to last for generations, and we may never recover. if that is the case, is the electoral college worth it? obviously not.

popularity contests should always be decided by popular vote. duh.

civil rights issues should NEVER be decided by anything other than the courts. of course we have to ensure another bench including the likes of the felonious five doesn't happen.

the tyrannical minority is, as we type, working their asses off to limit all sorts of human rights and personal freedoms, based on "popular" vote.

human rights are not up for negotiation, or a vote.

and politicians will always be the ones who are judged "most popular" by the people. (or at least those who vote. another issue, another thread.)

of course this is also assuming our votes are counted as they were cast.

:shrug:

we have quite a job ahead of us. a good first step would be to throw the EC on the trash heap of failed experiments.

[GOTV]

61. To me, the "almost never happens" argument supports pop vote

The fact that the EC vote almost never contradicts the popular vote says to be it has had almost no effect what so ever in the course of our nations progress. In that case, I say it's a needless complication.

And, if you wanted to prevent the large state from beating up the small states, you'd give each state one vote with maybe popular vote as a tie breaker only. But we didn't do that and thus, Wyoming doesn't matter in EC calculations.

The thing that protects against tyranny of the majority is the bill of rights. It should not be the EC.

If the big states wanted something that the little states don't, as long as it's not violating their rights under the constitution, I'm fine with it. For things not covered by the constitution/BoR majority should rule.

[Spider Jerusalem]

73. You're wrong.

States are NOT 'geographical (sic) regions'. They are, properly speaking, political entities each of which has its own executive, legislature and judiciary, whose authority within their own borders is subsidiary only to the US Constitution which forms the basis of our federal government ('federal': Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government).

And 'the majority' doesn't refer specifically to 'the people', in this case. Nor does the Electoral College system create a 'tyranny' of sparsely populated regions over major urban areas; what it does is give them near-PARITY in the matter of elections, as, without it, the votes of NYC, LA, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Seattle and a few other urban centres combined would be enough to decide the outcome of any election, thus rendering the votes of someone from Wyoming, or Oklahoma, or Alaska, or any other thinly populated region (which is going to have different economic and social concerns than an urban area) totally irrelevant.

The best solution would be not just to abolish the Electoral College, but to call for a new constitutional convention to replace our current governmental structure with a parliamentary system, with proportional (% of votes for a party = % of seats in parliament) representation (which is certainly more democratic than our current system will ever be, with or without the Electoral College).

[Berserker]

10. tyranny of the majority??

I was under the impression that this was a democracy and thats why we the people vote. This electoral college we have in place is a very outdated and unfair practice. If this is how our leaders are SELECTED why do the American people vote at all?
Why would anyone want the future of our nation decided by the precious few that apparently think they know more than we do.
This is not 1800 this is 2006 we now are very well informed and can make our own decisions.

[Egnever]

17. I believe this is a republic

Not a strict democracy. I could be worng about that though.

[endarkenment]

32. definitional arguments are so clever.

Most people mean some sort of representative democracy when they use the term 'democracy', not a town meeting.

Other countries seem to have evolved modern societies with robust democracies without the benefit of an electoral college. Why is that?

[Egnever]

35. yes I don't know why people hide behind them

I wasn't the one that started with the I believe its a democracy crap.

Would you care to expound on which modern societies you are referring to so perhaps we could discuss the merits of that system? or are you just spouting off cause you disagree with me?

Again I am not trying to say the electoral college is perfect or even working as intended. However doing away with it wholesale in favor of majority rule across the board doesn't thrill me either.

[MADem]

19. Beats the tyranny of the MINORITY, which is what we live under now! NT

[Hosnon]

26. You are under the wrong impression. Majority rule with minority rights is

the system we use.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the only Black guy trying to get the right to vote in a country based on simple majority rule.

[hedgehog]

13. The last time I checked, New york State could be divided into 10

mini-states each of which would still have a larger population than Wyoming! If votes in the Senate were weighted to represent population, The Senate would be overwhelmingly Democratic today.

[Egnever]

21. Again I am not trying to say

That i would not like the results that might be achieved by something like this. Only that it brings with it other dangers that I think the electoral college is intended to try to avoid.

Lets say for example just a crazy wild example no basis in reality here, That for some reason the issue of dog poop became a national issue and because all the metropolitan cities have issues with dog poop the candidate that most opposed dog poop won the election cause dog poop in the cities was a real problem. Meanwhile all the people in the small towns of america couldn't care less about dog poop but the other guy running represented them on a variety of other issues. However because dog poop is such a Hot topic item in the big cities that candidate wins no matter what else he happens to stand for.

Obviously this is a totally unreal example however I hope you get the point I am trying to make.

[GOTV]

62. If poop is the #1 issue with most people, poop should be dealt with

First of all, all states have large cities and rural areas, so the EC has no effect on that dichotomy.

As long we don't interfere with the rights of rural people, or people in smaller states, we should be able to deal with poop if poop is a major problem in large cities and most people live in large cities.

You realize there are thousands of ways you can divide a nation. One state against other state, rural vs. cities, men vs. women, white vs. non-white, religious vs. athiest, smoker vs. non-smoker, rich vs. poor, etc.

I'm hardly concerned that the EC helps (to the tiniest degree) to equalize the influence of large states against small states when there are several thousand other dichotomies where ther larger group can enforce it's will on the smaller.

So why shouldn't the poop be dealt with if it affects more people? When should the concerns of the majority be met?

If you are in a minority (and we all are in SOME kind of minority) and your concerns are not based on your rights under the constitution/BoR, your concerns should wait behind the concerns of the majority.

It's just not possible, under any system imaginable, to give equal weight to all concerns of all possible subsets of citizens. So we prioritize needs by the degree of concern felt by the greatest number of people and we use elections to make that measurement.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

40. Actually, probably not

Most of upstate NY -- which would comprise a lot of those 10 mini-states -- would probably lean more Republican. Upstate NY is much more conservative than NYC.

[mainegreen]

22. Ha! Good luck trying to argue rationally about the EC here!

Logic tends to be chucked right out the window on that issue.

[endarkenment]

50. Why should empty real estate have more say than people?

I keep missing the logical part of the argument.

[GOTV]

63. Prairie dogs and cow pies have rights too!

[Taoschick]

51. One problem

With ditching the electoral system would be getting out the vote in small states. I don't like the idea of small states losing representation. Who cares about New Mexico's voters when you have to make California and New York happy? Our current system isn't perfect, far from it, but it helps even the playing field for small states.

[GOTV]

64. The electoral system makes that problem WORSE

If you live in a winner take all state and you do not vote with the majority, your vote counts for exactly ZERO. In a popular vote you'd be more likely to vote because even though you may not be in the majority for your state, your vote can still be added to the votes in the rest of the nation.

I voted for Kerry in Ohio. Ohio's entire influence went to Bush.

[Yupster]

59. I'm ready to get rid of it

The US was set up by the many states and they therefore gave themselves the decision making power for president.

The state legislatures were to choose the electors and the electors would choose the president. The people really had nothing to do with it. There wouldn't even have to be an election for president. In fact South Carolina, an original colony, didn't have one until 1868.

But that theory of government is long gone today. States have lost almost all of their power, so at this point the electoral college is a relic. I'm ready to get rid of it.

[SheilaT]

6. I wish they'd get rid

of the Electoral College. I live in Kansas, and I'm frankly sick and tired of my vote not counting. I don't know why I bothered to vote in the presidential column in 2000 or 2004. The simple truth is that my vote does not count. Nor does anyone else's who votes for the loser in his or her state. Especially if it's not even close.

As for the idea of "protecting" the little people, or the argument that the presidential candidates wouldn't campaign everywhere, well as a little person (a short Democrat in Republican Kansas) I fail to see how I'm protected. And the candidates only campaign where they think they can win votes as it is. With a true popular election, every single vote really would count, so it might behoove them to get out to the hinterlands and not simply return to the same few areas over and over again during the campaign.

For example, fairly early on Kerry's campaign decided that it couldn't win Missouri, so all of his ads were pulled and he stopped visiting the state. Which certainly took the heart out of many of those who were willing to campaign for him locally. I suppose there are countless stories like this all over the country.

Instead, we ought to be able to look forward to seeing campaign stops if not from the nominee himself, but from all of his surrogates. What a difference that would make.

[hedgehog]

11. And every Democrat who didn't bother to show up to vote for

Kerry was also MIA for the local races. Face it, some people only pay attention to the top of the ticket. If this gets more of them out to support the rest of the ticket, it'll be quite an improvement.

[SheilaT]

20. What I mean is,

and I'm speaking only for myself and not as a suggestion to others, that I would vote in every other column, just not in the presidential one. Again, I want to emphasize my personal anger at my vote for president not counting under the electoral college system.

It's not as though I'm an armchair Democrat. I'm a precinct committee chairwoman and I ran for the Kansas State House two years ago, so I did more than my share. I just think the Electoral College is a worthless holdover from the 18th Century and should have been abandoned long ago. We went to direct election of Senators about a hundred years ago. I bet most people here don't even know that they used to be appointed.

[hedgehog]

23. I apologize for giving the wrong impression.

I figure it goes without saying that if you're posting here, you're voting in every election. I'm remembering the election of 1980 when Jimmy Carter conceded the election to Reagan before people in California got out of work. With the Electoral College, there was no way California was going to change the outcome in the Presidential race. the problem was that so many voters went straight home without voting that it tipped a lot of the state races.

[SheilaT]

29. Yes, I recall 1980 very well.

And it's true, many people go to the polls mainly or even only to vote for President, and that's one of the reasons the supposed undervotes in the presidential column in Ohio (I hope I've got it right) is so suspicious. If I did do what I threaten (not vote for the Democratic candidate for President but vote in all the other races) I'd be highly unusual, but so many don't vote down ticket, my little protest wouldn't even be noticeable.

However, I do want to convey my degree of anger at my vote not counting, and I personally get very tired of the defenses of the electoral college I see here and elsewhere.

[Egnever]

12. I doubt this would achieve the results you hope for

Instead this would have the effect in my opinion of concentrating the attention of politicians on major population centers making totally irrelevant large portions of the country, While I may or may not agree with what they want in the smaller towns in america they do deserve the right to be represented and this sort of majority rules electioneering would make huge portions of the country irrelevant.

[hedgehog]

14. But at least my vote in Upstaste New York would cancel out

a Republican vote in Utah!

[hedgehog]

24. I think it's time to re-think the entire campaign process.

Visiting every little spot to shake hands and "talk" to bemused people sitting in a coffee shop doesn't do it for me. What if a candidate stayed in one or two places and came out with a major policy speech every few days? It would certainly beat what we have now where a bored media listens to the same stump speech umpteen times and spends its time looking for bloopers. At least the candidate would have time to think and wouldn't be exhausted by the end of the race.

[Egnever]

25. Have to agree with you here

However there is something to be said for looking a candidate in the eye when asking him about your issue and judging his response for yourself. Easy to stand and give a prepared speach. Not as easy to look a person in the eye and lie outright.

[mccoyn]

39. They do that in battleground states.

I live in Michigan a "battleground" state. When the candidates visit they go to the population centers. We have plenty of rural territory, but they still head for the cities.

[GOTV]

67. Of course they do....

... the EC does nothing to help rural voters since every state has rural land. NY state is not one big city and wyoming is not all farmland.

You go to where the highest density of people are, which is sitting on their butts in front of TVs but if you can't afford to be on the TV, you go to the cities and hope the rural people like what they see of you on the news.

[Blue_Tires]

15. i used to live in KS as well

i voted in '00, but i knew my vote was a futile gesture, so i gave it to nader

[GOTV]

65. Who care where they go to campaign...

... as long as they have my priorities?

If I could, I'd prevent any national polititian from campaigning in my area. It just screws up the traffic.

Modern media - it's like being there where ever there is.

[unblock]

7. i wonder if this is even constitutional

it may violate the californian as well as the u.s. constitution.

it effectively hands california's electoral votes over to non-californians, which would undermine the voting power of californians.

the u.s. constitution does give considerable latitude to each state's legislature as to how to determine its electoral votes, but the courts have held that IF you have a statewide election, then certain principles hold, and therein lie many problems.

[Taoschick]

52. If we used the direct popular vote

To elect a President and Vice President, it would require an Amendment in the US Constitution and many state Constitutions. Each state can decide how to appoint electors and how they will cast their votes (adhere to results of popular vote) but each state is bound by the electoral system.

[InkAddict]

60. No Constitutional Amendment, popular vote, or

electoral college gave us Gerald Ford. In spite of the cost in dollars and/or time needed to accomplish a democratic solution, democracy was ill-served by his arbitrary "appointment". In spite of the potential for a high cost in dollars, the ratio of party respresentation in Congress at the time, the "confused" American psyche at the time, the responsibility and priviledge to participate in the "democratic" system in place at the time was hijacked by this "appointment." What happened may well have resulted in the same results, but every or any organized Party should have been invited, by emergency session, if need be, to choose a candidate for a special election, IMO.

CA's movement on this seems to smack of "secession" from the Union of the States, from the standpoint of an agreed method to support a check and balance system on the way in which States participate at the federal level.

Also, the electoral college was also established because the mass population was by and large not educated as well as the elite who could afford higher levels of education. That is no longer necessarily the case. Evidences of improved communication and technology have also changed our population's macro/micro means of the "critical thinking" method of choosing our representation. Somehow, I'm not sure that the dumb/blind religious by faith alone method should be the sole means to choose representative "authority." Not accepting The Unibomber's methods of attention-grabbing, perhaps Ted K's issues with technology DO warrant inspection.

[Egalitariat]

8. A great way to give the Republicans a shot at 55 Electoral Votes that...

they have no chance of currently winning.

Who's pushing this bill?

[Zynx]

18. If the Republicans win the nationwide popular vote, they always win the

electoral college anyway.

[Hosnon]

27. This view is a little short-sighted. Had all of the states had this system

we would have had President Gore in 2000.

We must look past the current circumstances.

[Egnever]

28. True

We would have Gore now and I would love to have had that result. However I cant say that in the future I would be so pleased with the outcome of something like this. Also its totaly arguable that if not for the medling with the vote in Florida we would have had Gore in 200 anyway and the electoral college would have once again voted with the nation.

[Egalitariat]

31. If all of the states were considering it, then this view would be...

admittedly shortsighted.

They aren't and it isn't.

Why would California choose to give Republicans a shot at 55 votes they can't win in the current system?

[Hosnon]

38. Very true. But if all of the states were considering this then the

electoral college would probably simply be removed via an amendment.

This may be the beginning of a larger trend. Plus, I believe the statute wouldn't be triggered until certain conditions are met.

The proposal is beneficial, in my opinion, because the electoral college needs to be debated more and we need to figure out which system we want.

[GOTV]

68. If I understand it correctly...

... the CA law would not go into effect until enough other state legislatures passed similar laws so that a majority of the EC would be awarded to the popular vote winner.

Until that happens CA electors will be appropriated according to CA votes only.

[endarkenment]

33. We also have no idea how many people don't vote

because they live in states where there is no point in voting.

[Hosnon]

37. Great point. These kinds of proposals could drastically change American

politics.

[cascadiance]

56. If only California had it in 2000, there wouldn't have been "recounts"!

It would have already been over with close to half of the votes from California going to Republicans and everything else being equal, then Florida wouldn't have made the difference.

NO! There's absolutely NO way that California should *start* this system without everyone doing it at once. As I noted, going "half-way" will only distort it worse against us. I'm not saying it's GOOD now, but the only way to make it better is if EVERY state goes by popular vote, not just the big "Blue" states and the other smaller red states will then give more votes to the Republicans along with our "fair" giving of votes to the Republicans, which will have this race lost before it starts.

Just CAN'T do it halfway! Don't get snookered by this crap. It's right to argue on doing a popular vote in principal now, but until everyone's ready to play by the same rules, don't do it.

[arcos]

58. The ammendment is not to award delegates based on the state vote...

but to give ALL delegates to the winner of the nationwide popular vote.

[mikelgb]

30. I don't like the idea of CA going first.

then GOP just has to do the standard florida/ohio operation to rig the pop vote and bam CA goes for GOP. While all other states stay the same...

[endarkenment]

34. They won't.

The legislation requires that there be a majority (electoral majority) of states with this legislation enabled or it falls back to the normal mechanism.

[Exiled in America]

41. Sometimes we are 50 states and sometimes we are 1 nation:

The writers of the West Wing actually said it best when they gave Bartlett a line to say during the presidential debates that said (paraphrase):

Sometimes we are 50 separate states and sometimes we are one big nation. And the reason I know this is because Florida didn't liberate Europe or create civil rights progress or establish better national standards for workers. The United States did.

In the spirit, I am going to argue that the election of a NATIONAL president is not a STATES issue. It is a NATIONAL one where the majority of the population of this country should have the final say on who is leading this nation.

[zann725]

42. Great! The 'Pugs would have only ONE place to "fix" Numbers for Prez

Much easier, much less worries.

How Ahnaaalld to suggest it. And in SUCH a "Blue" state, with SO MANY electoral votes. How very convenient.

[Bill McBlueState]

71. Arnold didn't suggest it

The bill was introduced by a Democrat, only one Republican voted for it, and it's only now making it to the governor's desk.

[MasonJar]

43. That is dangerous for Dems since we already get Ca.'s votes.

Dems have nothing to gain until all states do it.

[davhill]

44. I don't understand

Does this mean a candidate could theoretically take California without a single California voter voting for that candidate?

[liberalpragmatist]

46. Yes, but ONLY If a majority of other states do too

Under this proposal, the state will cast its electoral votes for the national popular vote winner, but ONLY if enough states equalling 270+ electoral votes pass the same proposal (it has been introduced in several other states but hasn't yet passed).

This way, California will operate under the same winner-take-all principle until a majority of electoral votes are pledged to the national popular vote winner. So for now, it'll still be winner-take-all in that whoever wins California's votes, regardless of the national popular vote, will get California's electoral votes.

[cascadiance]

48. Has to be ALL of the states or I don't want it!

If all of the states don't do it, those that don't will still have more power than the rest of us, and in fact if they are red states even MORE power, since they will be voting winner take all and we won't, and inflate the Republican vote totals and give those states more power. Right now the only thing that keeps us relatively even is that to balance it out we have winner take all. Take winner take all away from us and have it still enforced in other states and then we are WORSE off than before!

[endarkenment]

49. I don't see it that way.

If the urban blue states all sign up they in effect become a huge mega state with enough electoral votes to decide the entire election. Everyone else might just sign on to at least have some say.

I say lets shake it up. The system is rotten as it is.

[liberalpragmatist]

57. No it doesn't - Think about it

270 electoral votes decides an election. If states whose electoral vote total equals or exceeds 270 throw their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, then it makes no difference what the other states do. So even if remaining red states, for instance, vote Republican in a winner-take-all style despite a Democrat winning the national popular vote, the electoral votes of those red states have no bearing on the outcome.

[MurrayDelph]

47. If this were to happen

states like Ohio and Florida would end up recording more votes than
there are people in California.

[samsingh]

53. i was originally against this, but now it may be a very good thing

it may be quite ingenious from a Democratic point of view.

[suston96]

66. At the very least.....

...this electoral college quagmire will once more be debated.

Remember Florida, 2000. That state legislature was about to scrap the popular vote and was about to pick its own electors until the Republican USSC came through for them.

This electoral college is one of the weaker parts of the Constitution which has had several other state controls of federal elections remedied with recent amendments.

However, I foresee a possible problem if the federal Constitution continues to prevail and allows any state legislature to continue to select electors, over and above the will of that state's electorate.

Did I miss something in that article that addresses a conflict between this state legislation and the electoral college design of the federal constitution?

[samsingh]

69. will arnold sign it?

[cobalt1999]

70. Imagine the lawsuits.

Especially the first time a republican wins the national vote but not California and California's electoral votes go to a Republican. Now imagine that those electoral votes push the republican over 270 votes.

You know, the republicans have been trying to screw with the constitution for so long, I wish the dems would leave it alone too.

[Endangered Specie]

72. In states like NC, were we control the state government...

we ought to do something similiar, like split up our votes like Colorado tried to do.

Im tired of playing nice, nice in this state means you lose. Its time to get mean and play unfair!