CA Bill to Bolster Election Clout Gains: national popular vote winner...

[DeepModem Mom]

would get state's Electoral College votes

LAT: Bill to Bolster Election Clout Gains
The Assembly passes a measure to pledge the state's Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.
By Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2006

SACRAMENTO — 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.

Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide. Proponents say that would force candidates to broaden their reach to major population centers such as California.

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.

"This is a bill that would allow California to be able to play a role in presidential elections," said Barry Fadem, the Lafayette, Calif., lawyer spearheading the drive. Now, because the state is largely ignored, he said, "A vote in California is not equal to a vote in Ohio, and everyone would concede that."...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-vote31may31,0,5458992.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Newsjock]

1. "Here, we don't want these 55 electoral votes. Someone else take them."

In a 2008 election where our country's very future is at stake, the Democrats are willingly giving up a sure 55 electoral votes!? Absolute madness.

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. Indeed

Who's really behind this?

[keopeli]

6. Is our future at steak in 08?

With all due respect, I thought we lost control way back around 00 and 02. We are living in that unpleasant future. Might this not be a way to change our course long-term, perhaps for the better?

Just a thought.

Peace.

[sutz12]

3. Stupid.....stooooppidddd....

This would only enhance the "Why vote at all?" philosophy. Traditionally, low voter turnout favors Republicans. This doesn't just affect the presidential election, it affects all ballots and contests throughout the state.

Bad, bad idea.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

22. I see it having the opposite effect in some areas

I'm from IL originally and live in NY now -- both traditionally blue states. In both states, I've known a large number of people (Democratically-leaning) who don't vote in Presidential elections because it's already pretty much a given that the state will go blue anyway.

I could forsee massive Democratic turnout in California due to this bill if a compact were made and adhered to by other states.

[KnaveRupe]

25. So?

CA has 2 Dem Senators, and will have a Dem governor again come the next election.

The California Legislature is controlled by Democrats, as is the California State Senate.

How does increasing Democratic turnout in Presidential elections offset the chance of losing CA's 55 electoral votes?!? What possible benefit could increased turnout have that makes it worth that risk?!?

This is just goofy. I cannot believe that any Democratic politician would support this, and I cannot believe that any Democratic voter would support this. This is a gift to Republicans.

Sheer insanity.

[keopeli]

34. Because their electoral votes would go to the popular winner.

In other words, whoever gets the most total votes would win. Period. So, if Californians had a major increase in voter turnout, it would increase the likelihood that their candidate would be elected.

Voter turnout would matter more than ever - everywhere.

[CAcyclist]

50. Right and thus Gore would have won over Bush

if this was in place in 2000.

[struggle4progress]

38. "I voted. For who, I doesn't know. But I voted."

[Richard Steele]

4. What nonsense is this? Politicians can now IGNORE CA entirely!

This isn't going to get the state more attention;
it will clearly do exactly the opposite.

So, what do we know about Barry Fadem,
the Lafayette, Calif., lawyer spearheading the drive?
Anyone heard of this guy before now?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

45. I don't understand.

This agreement basically renders the electoral college irrelevant. How does that allow politicians to ignore CA?

[serryjw]

49. That's the first thing I said?

WHY would Red states pass this? I'm not for repealing the EC becuase I have heard of too much fraud. I have think about how I feel about this/

[Richard Steele]

53. Well, maybe I don't understand either.

The more I think about this, the less certain I am
of what it even means, and what the ultimate effects would be.

I'm changing my opinion to "n/a" for the time being.

[keopeli]

5. This is the first I've heard of this bill; some serious thought is require

I believe in certain things that I have no way of proving absolutely, so I must start by admitting this to all.

I believe our US election system has been corrupted electronically at the very least.

I believe the current electoral college system is outdated. It does not produce a true representative of the states and it represents land rather than people (in this case, the states' land).

I believe that until we fix our monumental problem with the election system, all other efforts can be rendered meaningless at the whim of a powerful few.

I believe the 2008 election, and every one after, will be questionable (no matter the winner) until this problem is solved, making the repair of our elected representative government paramount above all other issues at hand.

All that being said, there are some very serious benefits that should be considered when contemplating the bold move being considered in legislatures nationwide. Here are but a few:

1. Candidates would be forced to appeal to the greater population, rather than isolated communities in the mid-west. Think about that. Think about why religious conservatism has been working as an issue for Republicans. Here's a hint: it's NOT because most Americans agree with these creeds.

2. With the lion's share of the electoral vote in hand, candidates would be forced to appeal to Californians. Californians! Not, Iowans, or Ohioans, or even Texans.

3. Money the candidates spend would have to be spread out over a much greater and more diverse population. In effect, this would even out the playing field with regard to campaign spending (or at least make it more even). How? The candidates dollar wouldn't go anywhere near as far as it currently does. If you live in Washington (like me), almost no money is spent on issues I care about. If you live in Ohio, almost all money from both parties is spent on issues you care about (or are told to care about).

Now, those are three VERY GOOD benefits of this legislation. And, these are LONG TERM answers. Eventually, the entire nation would have to do something. If a block of 13 states suddenly gets all the political attention, all those good folk who live in the midwest and south would be in for a very rude awakening.

It looks like there are plenty of naysayers so far posting here, so I'll leave the negative aspects of this bill to them. But, from where I sit, this looks like something to give serious consideration without having a knee-jerk reaction to such a major change.

Peace.

[KnaveRupe]

7. What the heck are you talking about?

2. With the lion's share of the electoral vote in hand, candidates would be forced to appeal to Californians. Californians! Not, Iowans, or Ohioans, or even Texans.


Why would they have to appeal to Californians? * won the popular vote in '04, and yet he lost CA. Under this legislation, California would have given their electoral votes to George W Bush, in violation of the wishes of California voters, a clear majority of whom preferred Kerry. This is a license to utterly IGNORE California.

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but I fail to see how this helps Democrats, OR the majority of Californians who support Democrats.

[keopeli]

8. What you say is true, if 04 had been subject to this bill.

But, 04 was NOT subject to the bill. 04 was run the way all elections were run because that's the way the electoral college was setup at the time.

To be valid, you must extend your example way back to 02 and imagine that this bill had been enacted, empowering a 13+ state block with the majority of the electoral college. Then you would have to imagine where Bush and Kerry would have campaigned, and on what issues, given this enormous block of votes. And you have to imagine what the media coverage would have been like - "The Block of 13 States will side with whoever the majority of Americans pick!

I can't predict what the outcome of that election would have been like except to say that it would have very likely been a different experience for all of us.

I would say that all the effort the Republicans were spending on corrupting the vote in Ohio and elsewhere would have been much less effective under these circumstances, since Ohio likely would no longer have been a swing state. Although, getting a larger aggregate number of votes is would still have been motivation for voter fraud.

I understand that the concept is difficult - what if Californian's voted for one candidate, but another got the popular vote and the electors? Under our current paradigm, that does seem wrong. But, if this bill were to pass, we would be living under a different paradigm that ignores state borders. You would no longer be terribly interested in seperating yourself as a Californian or Texan. Rather, you would view yourself as an American.

Think of it this way: if you live in Austin, TX, your county voted for Gore and Kerry, neither of which were represented by your state in the Electoral College. So, even though all the people you live around agree with you, your fellow Texans do not. With this change in the electoral system, a "Californian" is like an "Austinite", both of whom must submit to the will of a larger population than their immediate environment. But, with the new system, you would be submitting to the will of the majority of Americans instead of just your state.

These are just thoughts. Again, this topic is new to me.

Thanks for the discussion!

Peace.

[KnaveRupe]

9. Nope.

Why should Californians forego their only advantage in electoral politics? As the state with the largest block of electoral votes, why would they give those votes away based on how the rest of the country votes?!

If California wants to have a greater sway over the electoral politics than they already have, there is one much easier option, and one that won't give away their advantage.

Move up their primary. Move it up to the same day as the New Hampshire primary. Hell, move it up to January first.

You want to see politicians pandering to CA voters.... that'll do it.

[Tansy_Gold]

10. Changing the primaries is one thing

Abolishing the Electoral College is another, and that's effectively what this change would do: The winner of the popular vote would be, well, the winner.

I think it might be worth our while to pose various scenarios -- popular wins/losses in individual key states -- and see exactly what effect this change would have on election outcomes. For instance, is there a scenario under the present system in which CA's electoral votes could give the election to the loser of the popular vote? How likely is that to happen? (serious question, not rhetorical) What would be the result in terms of political unrest, throwing the election to the SCOTUS (again!), etc.? Then, under the proposed change, what would be the result of CA throwing its votes to the winner of the popular vote who was NOT the winner in CA?

Secondly, how would the change affect campaigning, and the stated objective of bringing candidates to CA, or to any other state?

I have long been a defender of the Electoral College; I've always believed it offered an opportunity for the less-populous states to still have a meaningful voice in national politics. However, as the disparity between the number of individual votes represented by a single electoral vote widens, I see the balance of power shifting too far to the small-population states, and I don't think that's fair.

So the CA proposition seems, to me, to warrant some research as to how it might affect the outcome of a hypothetical election, especially cases where the new rule would change the outcome.

Just thinking,



Tansy Gold

[Ravy]

21. This is *very* dangerous. And here is why.

I will take this to a far extreme to make the point, then you can do your calculations...

Suppose the other 49 states signed an interstate agreement to give their electoral college votes to whoever won the popular vote *excluding* the vote counts in California. There.. the extreme.

Now to play a little finer gain. All states with Republican controlled legislatures get together and promise a winner-take-all for whoever gets the most popular vote in all of those states.

I know the California proposal says whoever gets the popular vote nationally, but certainly that could be changed to whoever gets the most popular votes in California, plus the other stats in the pact. If they get over 50% of the electoral college votes in states within that pact, the rest of the country has no say in the election.

[keopeli]

33. I don't think your scenario is possible.

The reason is because there is no legal precedent for pooling votes between particular states. In fact, it's possible for such an action to be considered sedition, or undermining the fabric of the government, because it's not based on a representation of the Republic which was established by the constitution.

While we have seen clear political divides between blocs of states and can even draw regional boundaries, these are pictures of the electoral map, not the process. Our current process gives electoral votes to states based on their representation in the legislature, which itself is based on the population and entity of the state itself. Nowhere is there an accounting for "pooled" votes between different regions, whether it be a presidential, gubernatorial, or mayoral election. On the other hand, there is arguable precedence for recognition of the total popular vote if you look at all our other election processes apart from President and Vice President.

Part of what makes the bill feasible is that it clearly demonstrates a willingness to bend to the will of the people. It's hypothetically possible that a 13 state block of states adopting this bill would send there electors to vote for a candidate not represented by the majority of those states' constituents. But, remember that the bills do not become law unless enough other states agree so that the bloc has a number equal to half of the electoral college, whose makeup is based on total population.

The electoral process is a very well defined legal process, with intricate details clarified in minute detail. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think a maneuver which compromised the representation of the Republic would get past even a conservative supreme court.

[Ravy]

37. Electoral college is only partially based on population. That is

what the big states often complain about.

A state legislature can decide on the electors being chosen by the state's popular vote, or allocated by percentage of votes in the state, or based on the nation's popular vote, or congressional districts, or even chosen by the state legislature without regard or need of a popular vote. I see no reason why they can't do it on a region's popular votes, or popular votes of members of a bloc. There is no federally mandated way that electors are chosen.

[keopeli]

43. It's an arguable point, but the bill only goes into effect if they have

a majority of the electoral college agree to do the same. If that's the case, then even if all the remaining states joined together they would be unable to carry the electoral college. And even then their votes would still be represented because the bill awards the winner of the national popular majority.

It's hypothetically possible that a bloc of states might side together before a majority of states were had by the bill at hand. This would give them a distinct advantage, but it would no doubt be short lived, as the remainder of the US reacts to being disenfranchised.

The change might be difficult at first, but it has two distinct advantages

1. It's doing something real and lasting to address election fraud, the single most important issue today (imho).

2. It's a long-term solution, rather than an attempt at campaign finance reform or electronic voting.

Peace.

[keopeli]

32. I agree, this deserves serious thought

and, if it's already being introduced in California, I assume serious thought has been given behind the scenes. I would be very interested in knowing the answers to your questions and, or course, to share them when I find them.

I think it is very likely that this type of decision would be appealed to the Supreme Court. Given that possibility, the likelihood of this change actually happening in the next 12 years is low. The Conservative Bloc on the court (Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Alito) do not support states rights and are clear partisans on election legislation.

Peace

[keopeli]

31. But, I don't think it's about primaries - it's the tone of the election

I don't think this is just about primaries. Overall, Republican presidential candidates don't spend much at all on california primaries. This will be true no matter when the primary is held, even if it's a year before the election, because in the end they won't get the electoral votes anyway. And remember, this is only about Presidential elections, so all other reasoning about primaries doesn't apply.

I don't understand how changing the electoral process as the bill describes is relevant to when California's primary process is held. In fact, it seems to me the bill would give the California primary more relevance no matter when the primaries are held, simply because so many people live in California.

I'm completely open to changing the date of the California primary. But, with the change that will occur if this bill is passed and practiced, I think the way primaries are covered by major media would change completely. I think we'd see a lot less of Iowa and New Hampshire and a lot more of NY and CA.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

23. See post #22

[CAcyclist]

51. But Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 - and he stole the vote in 2004

Gore would have won in 2000.

The way the system is set up now, the republicans have a permanent advantage unless a major exodus from the blue states goes into the red states. It won't just be California's 55 electoral votes - it'll be 270 votes from a combination of states, most but not all of them probably blue. Republicans would be forced to move to the center to court the moderate vote and avoid stirring up a liberal backlash that could drive huge numbers of Democrats to the polls.

And it would just be more fair. The person who wins the popular vote SHOULD be president.

[Toots]

11. Should just eliminate the electoral college then

Why even have it if it isn't used as intended?

[AnOhioan]

29. Exactly...get rid the electoral college

It is truly archiac and unecessary, not to mention it makes our votes in essence, count less than they already do.

[President Kerry]

12. This measure might only merit serious consideration if ALL states

adopt this solution. If it's only CA doing it, it's idiotic, and disenfranchise Californians from the voting process, spelling disaster.

[keopeli]

35. It would not take effect unless enough states signed on to equal

at least half of the electoral college.

[papau]

13. Bill to BolsterElectionClout Gains (nat'l popular vote winner gets CA)

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-vote31may31,0,5458992.story?track=tottext

From the Los Angeles Times
Bill to Bolster Election Clout Gains
The Assembly passes a measure to pledge the state's Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.
By Nancy Vogel
Times Staff Writer

May 31, 2006

SACRAMENTO — 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.

Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide. Proponents say that would force candidates to broaden their reach to major population centers such as California.

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.<snip>

[msongs]

14. just dump the electoral college in the first place... nt

[CAcyclist]

52. This is easier than dumping the electoral college .nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. Personally, I think a better option would be...

To allow each Congressional district to elect one elector, with the remaining two electors going to whomever wins the statewide race. That would better represent the political diversity of the state; going with this "compact" deal obliterates California's political clout.

[KnaveRupe]

17. Two words:

Gerry Mandering.

Er... ok. Technically that's one word. But allocating electoral votes based on the results of the congressional districts is a bad idea because the makeup of the districts is not determined objectively.

It would make the whole system more open to political manipulation.

Either leave it like it is, or eliminate the Electoral College altogether. But for CA to voluntarily forfeit their electoral clout is just asinine, IMHO.

[keopeli]

36. I understand your suggestions

The proposals you mention seem very fair, but they leave us in the old paradigm where campaigns and even policies are designed to appeal to niche groups of swing voters in isolated areas. Yours is a more fair distribution, but it doesn't address major problems. Yes, it might bring attention to some small areas of "swing" voters in California, but the campaigns would still be focused on appealing to this odd minority of voters rather than addressing the population as a whole. It also leaves in place the very real problem of manipulating votes electronically. If only a small population will determine the outcome of an election, it's much easier to infiltrate their machines.

This is an issue which weighs heavily on me, and this problem is only getting worse. We cant have a fair election as long as these criminals who are corrupting the election process electronically are dealt with. Unfortunately, they have congress on their side (since they elect the bastards). Perhaps this is a move that would blunt the efforts of these criminal manipulators.

One of the facets that I like about the bill being propsed is that it renders most of those efforts moot, because the important niche that their machines covered in the old electoral process would no longer be relevant since it is the overall popular vote that is the determining factor. I don't believe these criminals have enough knowledge and equipment to manipulate the entire electorate...yet.

I also agree that the compact deal obliterates California's political clout in the old system, but the truth is that it obliterates the political clout of all 50 states if it is enacted. In other words, it is an equal opportunity obliteration! As a result, a new paradigm would emerge that distributed "political clout" more equitably according to population density rather than manipulating small swing voter populations.

[struggle4progress]

39. Ensures that Congress will NEVER oppose the White House.

Better to allocate the electors in each state in proportion to the popular vote. That also creates incentive to count all ballots.

[TheVirginian]

47. I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time

I agree that it should no longer be a "winner-takes-all" system, but I think we should switch to a different method of proportionality than you proposed. First, it greatly increases the impact of political gerrymandering. Second, it does little to combat voter apathy; Democrats in heavily Republican districts still wouldn't feel their vote counted, and vice versa.

A better way is to do straight proportionality. If a candidate wins 40% of the vote, then they get 40% of the Electoral votes in that state. Obviously, most states don't divide easily, so the advantage to winning a state is that you round up, and the loser of the state rounds down. For instance, Candidate A wins 55% in a state that has 10 electoral votes, and Candidate B wins 45%. Rounding gives Candidate A 6 votes and candidate B 4 votes. Everybody in the state that voting for Candidate B is represented by the 4 votes he recieved, but the advantage is still given to the candidate that won the entire state.

After crunching the numbers, the results of this system would make the electoral college more closely resemble the popular vote; the difference is it still weighs smaller states more heavily against larger states, which the popular vote does not.

[bemildred]

16. How about we get rid of the electoral college instead?

National elections of national leaders, by popular vote.

[robinlynne]

18. This is a bill to do exactly that.

not supporting it. (don't think right now is the time to do this.) I think right now election fraud is the issue, not the electoral college. And if we need a second elctoral issue, it would be making election day a national holiday so people can vote.
but it looks like these people are trying to end the electoral college de facto.

[Ravy]

20. This bill won't do that unless all 50 states sign on (n/t)

[ourbluenation]

24. This bill makes electorate college redundant. which is the same thing. n/t

[Occulus]

26. Doesn't that mean it's unconstitutional? n/t

[struggle4progress]

40. Constitution Article II, section 1:

.. 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 ..

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

This is a potentially dangerous clause: in 2000 and 2004, Rs were arguing this article empowers the state legislatures to overrule existing state law regarding choice of electors ...

[sofa king]

41. Yep, that was the ace in the hole in FL.

The true turning point in the election of 2000 was when the Republican-controlled legislature announced that they would return Republican electors, regardless of the result of the recounts.

The Bush team battled fiercely to stop the recount, which obviated the need for the state legislature to simply tell the people to fuck off. But they would have, and they'll do it again if they can't steal Florida otherwise.

The United States I knew and loved never survived to see the Twenty-first Century. It'll probably take a few more election cycles for enough people to figure it out, and then the real work starts, rebuilding an America which has been robbed of most of its wealth and resources.

[Ravy]

27. Not unless they get enough signed up to guarantee victory for the

popular vote getter and *never* change the rules as to how the votes are counted.

[Sgent]

46. This bill only requries 50% of electoral college votes +1

to work.

Even if the other states don't sign on, that 50%+1 will control presidential elections (based on popular vote).

[Ravy]

19. Here is the *next* brilliant idea!!!!

I haven't done the math to know exactly how many, but lets say a particular 25 state bloc could give a candidate a majority of the electoral college.

They get together, and pass a law that whoever wins the popular vote *in those 25 states as a bloc* get the popular vote. So to be president, you only have to get the majority of the vote in 25 particular states (more if the smaller states create the bloc, less states if it is comprised only of the larger states).

That makes much of the country irrelevant.

Who would California and New York have to have with them to control the whole ball of wax?

[sofa king]

42. Eleven states.

The quickest way to 270 is the following, according to the Electoral College Calculator, which is reliable, and my math, which is not:

California - 55
Texas - 34
New York - 31
Florida - 27
Illinois - 21
Pennsylvania - 21
Ohio - 20
Michigan - 17
Georgia -15
New Jersey -15
North Carolina -15

The obvious problem is that unless California goes back to hunting American Indians for profit, Georgia is not likely to support the same candidate. That's a joke, Georgians! And yes, Californians, you really did.

[CPMaz]

28. This is incredibly stupid

" "This is a bill that would allow California to be able to play a role in presidential elections," said Barry Fadem, the Lafayette, Calif., lawyer spearheading the drive."

More like this is a bill that would allow California to step out of the presidential election process because the votes there won't matter.

I'm not a huge fan of the Electoral College, but this isn't an improvement. If the authors of this bill want to do away with it, they should write an amendment to the Constitution and get that passed.

[Joe Bacon]

30. This makes NO sense to me.

I'm in California and I voted for Kerry. I'll be damned to have the voice of the majority of Californians overridden!

[last_texas_dem]

44. Too many posters...

...seem to be missing/ignoring this very important sentence in the article.

>>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.>>

California isn't "giving anything up" if they are only agreeing to give their electoral college votes to the popular vote winner once the number of states necessary to make up an electoral college victory have agreed to do the same. They are playing an important role in trying to ensure that our Presidents, in the future, are elected by the popular vote, a very good idea if you ask me. I'm surprised at the number of DUers who seem to think the electoral college is an institution worth preserving.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Ideally we should abolish the Electoral College outright

use proportional representation, have multi-party elections, and expand the US House of Representatives.