CA may try to kill Electoral College

[Balta1701]

So, this is a very creative bill, and probably a step in the right direction.

 

Seeking to force presidential candidates to pay attention to California's 15.5 million voters, state lawmakers on Tuesday jumped aboard a new effort that would award electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationwide.

 

As it is now, California grants its Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state. Practically speaking, that means Democrat-dominated California spends the fall presidential campaign on the sidelines as candidates focus on the states — mostly in the upper Midwest — that are truly up for grabs.

 

....

The bill is part of a 3-month-old movement driven by a Bay Area lawyer and a Stanford computer science professor. The same 888-word bill is pending in four other states and is expected to be introduced in every state by January, its sponsors say. The legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes — a minimum of 13 states, depending on population.

Bill would still have to pass the state Senate and get signed by Governor Ass-Grabber, but that's certainly one way to kill off the electoral college, and it's one that doesn't require a constitutional amendment (since the states are allowed to proportion their electors however they please).

 

If you could get a few states, just some from each side of the aisle, to agree with this, then it would almost eliminate the possibility of another 2000 type election, coming down to a few hundred votes in 1 state, with the loser of the popular vote winning the election.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Balta1701

[southsider2k5]

Of course the state with the most to gain from this would be the one leading the way...

[Balta1701]

Of course the state with the most to gain from this would be the one leading the way...

Yes, but interestingly, the bill passed with the support of only 1 Republican, despite the fact that this would be about the only method of making it such that CA's electoral votes aren't firmly in the hands of the Democrats every time.

[YASNY]

This bill would totally nullify the will of the voters in the state. I can't believe anyone is endorsing this. Considering that California is almost always a guarenteed huge chunk of blue EC votes why aren't the Dems howling about this? Am I missing something here?

[southsider2k5]

They are trying to start a domino effect of other states dropping the electoral college, and at the sametime trying to get more canditates not to take Cali for granted during the election cycle.

[Texsox]

This bill would totally nullify the will of the voters in the state. I can't believe anyone is endorsing this. Considering that California is almost always a guarenteed huge chunk of blue EC votes why aren't the Dems howling about this? Am I missing something here?

 

Of course it couldn't possibly be Dems doing the right thing? Scary when you actually agree with California Democrats?

[AbeFroman]

This bill would totally nullify the will of the voters in the state. I can't believe anyone is endorsing this. Considering that California is almost always a guarenteed huge chunk of blue EC votes why aren't the Dems howling about this? Am I missing something here?

 

The reason they would do this is because its time to change the dialogue of our elections. American elections shouldn't be about the few small parts of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvnia, etc. that are swing areas. Its about the entire country.... People in California, Texas, New York, etc. are disporportionately ignored both during the election cycle and in the way their votes are cast.

 

I think the electoral college system is a stupid way to elect a president. Given recent historical standards, a 55-45% win in the popular vote is a landslide for presidential elections... But under the electoral college, the loser could takes office.

 

Its dumb, the incumbent has a weak mandate, and it shifts the national focus from who the majority think should be president to who the majority of people in 7 counties in ohio think should be president.

 

I hope other states adopt this rule also... enough to drastically change the discourse and tenor of our election cycles.

Edited June 2, 2006 by AbeFroman

[vandy125]

The reason they would do this is because its time to change the dialogue of our elections. American elections shouldn't be about the few small parts of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvnia, etc. that are swing areas. Its about the entire country.... People in California, Texas, New York, etc. are disporportionately ignored both during the election cycle and in the way their votes are cast.

 

I think the electoral college system is a stupid way to elect a president. Given recent historical standards, a 55-45% win in the popular vote is a landslide for presidential elections... But under the electoral college, the loser could takes office.

 

Its dumb, the incumbent has a weak mandate, and it shifts the national focus from who the majority think should be president to who the majority of people in 7 counties in ohio think should be president.

 

I hope other states adopt this rule also... enough to drastically change the discourse and tenor of our election cycles.

 

I actually like the Electoral College. Sure, it is not perfect, but I do not want the popular vote to be the complete deciding factor. When that happens, only the voice of the large metro areas will count. Your farmers and rural population's needs will not be heard at all.

[Texsox]

United States of America. Is it time to forget about the whole states thing and start thinking nationaly?

[EvilMonkey]

How about having all the primaries on the same day? This way Iowa and a few East Coast states don't decide who we have left to vote for. Or divide the states into 3 or 4 groups. One year, group A votes first, next year, group B, etc. Almost anything would be better.

[Texsox]

How about having all the primaries on the same day? This way Iowa and a few East Coast states don't decide who we have left to vote for. Or divide the states into 3 or 4 groups. One year, group A votes first, next year, group B, etc. Almost anything would be better.

 

Perhaps even make it geographical and rotate the schedule each election cycle. Hell is freezing over.

[Rex Kickass]

I actually like the Electoral College. Sure, it is not perfect, but I do not want the popular vote to be the complete deciding factor. When that happens, only the voice of the large metro areas will count. Your farmers and rural population's needs will not be heard at all.

 

They aren't being now. So many states just go one way or the other that they are rarely visited or paid attention to.

[Balta1701]

How about having all the primaries on the same day? This way Iowa and a few East Coast states don't decide who we have left to vote for. Or divide the states into 3 or 4 groups. One year, group A votes first, next year, group B, etc. Almost anything would be better.

The Democrats under Dean have been making an effort to, at the very least, include a couple of states other than Iowa and New Hampshire in the first round, if for no other reason than the fact that the populations of Iowa and New Hampshire are incredibly homogeneous in terms of racial makeup. They've run into a lot of pushback from the folks in Iowa and N.H., who for some reason seem to like having every politician who wants to run for president trying to casually scratch their back (with gold.)

[YASNY]

Of course it couldn't possibly be Dems doing the right thing? Scary when you actually agree with California Democrats?

 

I don't think it's the right thing. I also happen to think it's politically insane on the part of the CA Dems. I can't believe the DNC isn't screaming bloody murder.

[vandy125]

They aren't being now. So many states just go one way or the other that they are rarely visited or paid attention to.

 

I disagree. I think that the less populous states won the presidency for Bush these past 2 terms. If you look at who voted for Gore and Kerry, I believe that it was incredibly bent towards the populous areas. Just because they weren't visited does not mean that their voice came through loud and clear.

[greasywheels121]

I disagree. I think that the less populous states won the presidency for Bush these past 2 terms. If you look at who voted for Gore and Kerry, I believe that it was incredibly bent towards the populous areas. Just because they weren't visited does not mean that their voice came through loud and clear.

 

He is right though. Indiana's a great example of what Rex was talking about. This state is forever red, hence republican candidates never feel the need to stop here. And it's a lost cause for a democrat to do so either.

 

The only way Indiana would ever be blue in an election, is if Evan Bayh is on the ballot.

[Gregory Pratt]

This bill would totally nullify the will of the voters in the state. I can't believe anyone is endorsing this. Considering that California is almost always a guarenteed huge chunk of blue EC votes why aren't the Dems howling about this? Am I missing something here?

 

It'll never pass.

 

But I'm glad someone's looking at this the right way. (You, not the Californian Democrats.)

 

[vandy125]

He is right though. Indiana's a great example of what Rex was talking about. This state is forever red, hence republican candidates never feel the need to stop here. And it's a lost cause for a democrat to do so either.

 

The only way Indiana would ever be blue in an election, is if Evan Bayh is on the ballot.

 

Are you saying that most people from Indiana do not want what the Republican candidates are offering? If so, then, stop voting so much for the Republicans. Then, the candidates will see that what they are offering is not fitting in with that state's concerns, and that they may need to change things.

 

If they are voting Republican just out of the habit of voting Republican, then that is a problem with the voter. If they are voting Republican because of lack of other choices, then that is a problem with our 2-party system and not the Electoral College.

[greasywheels121]

Are you saying that most people from Indiana do not want what the Republican candidates are offering? If so, then, stop voting so much for the Republicans. Then, the candidates will see that what they are offering is not fitting in with that state's concerns, and that they may need to change things.

 

If they are voting Republican just out of the habit of voting Republican, then that is a problem with the voter. If they are voting Republican because of lack of other choices, then that is a problem with our 2-party system and not the Electoral College.

 

My point is what's the incentive for a democrat to vote in a state such as Indiana? I don't really get into these kinds of discussions; so there could very well be something that I'm not seeing here.

[vandy125]

My point is what's the incentive for a democrat to vote in a state such as Indiana? I don't really get into these kinds of discussions; so there could very well be something that I'm not seeing here.

 

That is a good point, but what if we extend that point nationally. Say we go by popular vote, with our 2-party system, what happens if it is a landslide election for a Republican? What would the point be for any Democrat in the nation to vote (not just the one's in Indiana)?

[greasywheels121]

That is a good point, but what if we extend that point nationally. Say we go by popular vote, with our 2-party system, what happens if it is a landslide election for a Republican? What would the point be for any Democrat in the nation to vote (not just the one's in Indiana)?

 

Point taken. I guess this thing's never going to be perfect, either way. It was just something I've always wondered about, being in this state. I just always figured a democrat's vote in Indiana would be quickly cancelled out in state, but with out the EC, it would mean something nationally.

 

Thanks for bringing that other scenario into view for me.

[vandy125]

Point taken. I guess this thing's never going to be perfect, either way. It was just something I've always wondered about, being in this state. I just always figured a democrat's vote in Indiana would be quickly cancelled out in state, but with out the EC, it would mean something nationally.

 

Thanks for bringing that other scenario into view for me.

 

I think this is one of the hardest things to figure out. With so many different types of people and situations, how do we make sure that they are all hard and that our resources get sent to those who need it the most? It won't ever be perfect, but IMHO, I do think that the EC helps.

 

Its always good to at least talk about these things to actually get a firm opinion on it and to get reasons why you have that opinion.

Edited June 3, 2006 by vandy125

[IggyD]

The reason they would do this is because its time to change the dialogue of our elections. American elections shouldn't be about the few small parts of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvnia, etc. that are swing areas. Its about the entire country.... People in California, Texas, New York, etc. are disporportionately ignored both during the election cycle and in the way their votes are cast.

 

I think the electoral college system is a stupid way to elect a president. Given recent historical standards, a 55-45% win in the popular vote is a landslide for presidential elections... But under the electoral college, the loser could takes office.

 

Its dumb, the incumbent has a weak mandate, and it shifts the national focus from who the majority think should be president to who the majority of people in 7 counties in ohio think should be president.

 

I hope other states adopt this rule also... enough to drastically change the discourse and tenor of our election cycles.

 

 

I AGREE 100%

[minors]

I say go ahead if California wants to give there 55 votes to a Republican then be my guest. It is a state that we can't win anyway so even it does go Democrat it's no big deal because it is a solid blue state to begin with.

[minors]

The reason they would do this is because its time to change the dialogue of our elections. American elections shouldn't be about the few small parts of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvnia, etc. that are swing areas. Its about the entire country.... People in California, Texas, New York, etc. are disporportionately ignored both during the election cycle and in the way their votes are cast.

 

I think the electoral college system is a stupid way to elect a president. Given recent historical standards, a 55-45% win in the popular vote is a landslide for presidential elections... But under the electoral college, the loser could takes office.

 

Its dumb, the incumbent has a weak mandate, and it shifts the national focus from who the majority think should be president to who the majority of people in 7 counties in ohio think should be president.

 

I hope other states adopt this rule also... enough to drastically change the discourse and tenor of our election cycles.

 

 

If this happens the elections will come down to a popular vote. If people think the Flordia mess was something think about it happening in all 50 states any election under 500,000 votes will cause challenges all over the country and maybe a year after the election was over we could finally have a new president. Only in 1876,1888 and 2000 has the popular vote winner lost and all 3 elections the margin was no greater than a 2% win.