Makes sense. I only wish more states would do something similar. The fact that Philadelphia alone virtually ensures Pennsylvania goes democrat in every election is just BS. Their are a vast majority of people in our state who vote republican, but they are outweighed by the Democrat majority in the big cities. Also representative voting would actually give another party at least a shot at trying to break the stalemate. I find it ridiculous to vote in the elections because I know PA is going Democrat no matter what I do, so whats the point?

This is one conservative Republican who thinks this is a bad idea. Making changes to anything out of immediate convenience will only come back to bite you in the butt later.

How about instead of rigging the election, we run an appealing candidate?!

Not going to happen. The dems would never win another national race, so they won't let it happen. Rules can be changed, damn the voters..

So, Republicans want to take some of California's reliably Democratic electoral votes.

Okay, sure. We can implement this plan in California, but only if Republicans are willing to enact identical plans in Texas. It'd only be fair, right?

Make individual votes matter? Who'da thunk it!

why don't we just get rid of the absurd electoral college completely- then every vote will count and the republicans cannot steal any more elections

Republican Majority?

Pennsylvania Presidential Results:

2004
Bush: 2,793,847
Kerry: 2,938,095

2000
Bush: 2,281,127
Gore: 2,485,967

1996
Clinton: 2,215,819
Dole: 1,801,169

1992
Clinton: 2,239,164
Bush: 1,791,841

I'm not sure that the state of California has the right to say that they get to count electoral votes differently than every single other state in the country. I don't even think the conservative SC will let this fly. This seems more like something that needs to be settled at a national level and enforced throughout all the states. An exception here or there for the sole purpose of rigging an election shouldn't be allowed.

I suspect California voters, Republican and Democrat alike, are not going to support this initiative. It is a strategic play - albeit a good one - on the part of one political party to gain advantage of the other and as such does not truly benefit California voters. I for one am tired of these Rovian tactics. It's time to stop playing games and start solving real problems.

Republican Majority? It seems the more local House elections also show a majority of voters choosing Democrats. 11 Democrats vs 8 Republican.

You might live in a Republican District, but the majority of your state is voting Democratic.

….I'll stop. Just wanted to throw some facts in there.

I don't think that everyone reading the article understands what is being proposed here. This proposal wouldn't "make individual votes matter" more, but it would in fact make them matter less.

This proposal would make it so that a sparsely populated congressional district would count exactly the same as a densely populated district in terms of electoral votes. Is that truly fair? I don’t think so. It completely ignores the popular vote. Why should the voice of thousands be equal to the voice of millions?

Of course the “All or Nothing” system doesn’t seem very fair either. What about a proposal that would distribute the electoral votes properly according to population? How about 2 or 3 electoral votes for the larger more densely populated districts? Then take the sparsely populated districts and combine them into groups or 2 or 3 districts would total a single electoral vote.

[...] make Republicans raise a signel eye brow in interest and make Democrats red in the face. California could become a swing state in the 2008 Presidential race, and every run for the White House [...]

Let me preface my statement by saying I have no CLUE how each states' districts appear (whether making this change would help democrats or republicans)… but in the effort to more closely represent the will of the people - I would highly favor doing this throughout the country.

As American voter (conservative) what I most want are elections that are fair. This change would more closely represent the will of the voters - whereas the electorial college process where all votes are awarded state-by-state is basically a winner-take-all. I would imagine awarding electorial votes by district would cause an increase in voter participation. Here in California (right now) my vote for a republican doesn't mean very much. Broken down by district I get a better shot of contributing to the outcome of the election.

The only downside… can you imagine the wrangling that would ensue in each states' legislature over districting?? Whether it was democrat or republicans in charge - each would be vying for creating an advantage.

I posted this informational comment and it appeared briefly and was then eliminated. What a sad commentary on a valuable comment.

Yes, California should dramatically sway the 2008 election as there are other California Initiative Measures that will propel new fresh exciting NonPartisan Independent candidates onto the November 2008 General Election Ballot.

This Initiative-07-0019, on Attorney General website http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/activeindex.php?active=A will provide the popular means for Declined-to-State candidates to qualify their name on the November 2008 ballot without the $BIG $MONEY “corporate influence peddling” requirement to raise and spend $600,000 to bulk purchase the voter signatures from paid signature gathers. The Initiative website is at: http://www.NonpartisanPatriot.com which provides an introduction to the voter legislation.

Congressional districts are drawn so that each district consists of approximately the same number of people, so I don't know if your suggestion would work, Eric.

The real problem is the electoral college in general. If all the city districts go 90% vs 10%, they each get one vote, but so do rural districts where it's 60% vs 40%. (made up numbers). If you are a bit more corrupt, you can draw the district lines to magnify this effect by trying to draw them where your party gets a majority but also gets a sizable minority vote. This way you maximize the number of votes that are not in agreement with the electoral vote for the district.

It seems like allocating the electoral votes in a state by percentages makes sense, but this only makes sense if it were national for reasons people stated above. Since that would likely require an amendment to the constitution, it isn't likely to happen.

Anonymous from PA,
If "Their are a vast majority of people in our state who vote republican," shouldn't the Republicans be winning all of the votes under the current system? Obviously, you're a little unclear as to the meaning of "majority," let alone "vast majority."

I'm completely fine with California changing this, so long as EVERY other state follows suit. That'd never happen, though, as no one's really interested in balancing the playing field. That said, it'd be nice if the Democrats in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, etc. all got their votes to count, just like Republicans in New York, Massachusetts and California.

Why not just change the whole system into a….DEMOCRACY. Who ever gets the most votes in the country becomes President. What a novel concept! But we will never be a TRUE democracy–Too revolutionary, or socialist to ever become reality in the US I guess.

Jon, a plan such as this one would most likely help Republicans in "blue states" and Democrats in "red states."
While I agree that this type of plan would be more fair in theory, the ubiquitous gerrymandering done by both parties will make this plan even less fair than the "winner take all" plan.
And I don't see how this plan could be fair by any stretch of the imagination if only a few states accept it.

Joe in NC-a state considering a similar plan

Politics at its worst. Let's change the rules because we are losing. Wow!

I agree - dump the electoral college! On the same token - also make Democrats stop saying that Gore "won" the election - with the current electoral college - he did not - popular vote…but not the electoral college - thats the rules…they should be changed….but….at the time - they were in place! I really think many of the Dems believe their rhetoric…which is sad…and scarey. Lawyers and Unions are destroying this country…well…and Democrats…

Republicans are absolutely disgusting!

Another Republican scam to fix another election. They don't have Jeb Bush in Florida anymore and those eight US attorney jobs are just way too visible to do any mudslinging of democratic candidates so the GOP is finding another way to rob Americans of their votes. Sounds like a typical Karl Rove scheme to me! I miss Molly Ivins! She would have hauled Karl out into the light and given him a good tongue lashing for trying something so transparent!

What a surprise. The Republicans found another way to make the Constitution say whatever the hell they wish. I'm glad that our nation's Constitution is easily the most corruptable single document in the history of the United States. The beauty of it is that it was left open cause the original leaders of the country knew they couldnt think of everything for the future, and left the document open to interpret. Unfortunately it leaves constitution open to total bastardization, which seemingly is Republican doctrine or something. I only note this because the electoral college i believe is an ammendment, and all of a sudden, the republicans think they are in trouble somewhere, so they rape the words of the constitution again. What is wrong with socialized healthcare, the "democratic health care system" is garbage. If the health care industry had any standards to begin with , we wouldnt be dealing with a market flooded with 500 different pills to make an erection and ZERO to cure cancer.

I don't think the Democrats that say he won the election can be dismissed that way. If they are referring to the popular vote, then they are complaining about a system they don't agree with. If they are referring to the electoral college, then they are referring to a belief that corruption led to inaccurate results.

I don't think either statement is something that can be dismissed like that. A majority of Americans did vote for Al Gore. Bringing attention to the laws that allowed him to lose the election isn't unreasonable. The accuracy of the results were a contentious issue at the time of the elections and still are. It's not absurd to voice doubts about the accuracy of the results(regardless of whether those doubts turn out to be true)

Wow! What do you know? Republicans trying to change election laws because they can't win elections - I'm SHOCKED.

What a bunch of sore losers.

They should amend it so it only goes into effect if all states pass such a law. They might also say the President is of the United States and not their own party. No more talk of mandates unless they get 75%, or more, of the vote.

The electoral college has got to go! We tout democracy yet the most powerful elected position in this country is not democratically elected. Completely absurd! Despite that, the idea that the states have a right to determine the rules of a federal election is absolutely ridiculous and, no matter how it goes, all states should be forced to follow the same rules. If they aren't democratic they should at least be fair for gods sake.

This is the logical modern progression of the Electoral College as the framers of Constitution had envisioned. The Electoral College was designed and purposely WEIGHTED so that the more-populous states of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland or Massachusetts wouldn’t run roughshod over less populous states of Delaware, Vermont or Maine, for example. It was designed to ensure that the votes of the larger states wouldn’t trump the votes of the smaller states (as populations tend to live in packs, think in packs, vote in packs, etc.). The framers were concerned with the impact large states would have on elections and representation. Today, the framers would likely be more concerned not with states, but rather the impact of large cities.

The framers couldn’t possibly have envisioned an America as populous as it has become, especially the size of America’s major cities and their significant influence on elections. Today, it’s the big cities and major population pockets that now trump the vote of smaller cities and even many states. As such, the Electoral College simply needs to be updated, not scrapped… scaled down further and applied at the individual voting district level instead of at the state level.

Currently, a candidate need only carry the popular vote in 10 or 15 of the most populous cities in the nation and he/she would carry the entire election, effectively negating the votes of the entire rest of the nation. This is certainly not what the framers had in mind.

Take Illinois for example (no, YOU take Illinois, I don’t want it!). In Illinois, a presidential candidate need only carry the couple counties that make up greater Chicagoland, and he/she would carry the entire state and all of its Electoral College electors. The candidate wouldn’t need to even bother spending the money to campaign south of Joliet or west of Aurora, and he/she would STILL take the entire state. In this scenario, if you live downstate, you’re still taxed, but you get very little representation. Again, this is not the representational government the founders had in mind.

By scaling the Electoral College down to the voting district level, (as opposed to the current state level envisioned by the framers) it ensures that large population pockets don’t steamroll over everyone else. The voting districts would then be properly weighted and balanced against one another.

Now try this new “scaled” Electoral College in an example. Say a presidential candidate carries the popular vote in a district or county (which ever you choose) in a particular state. The candidate would then “win” the electoral vote for that district/county. Whoever wins a majority of districts/counties would then win the state’s electoral votes (winner take all). Or, hell, for chagrins, you could even have the counties broken out, to where the presidential candidate who carries the most districts/counties in the nation would win. This would be somewhat of a blend of the current “winner take all” electoral college and the popular vote. Either way, these would both be more accurate and more representational of the voting population than the current application of the Electoral College.

Imagine the Republican tantrum if a lawyer representing the Democratic party tried the same thing in, say, Texas. There seems to be a double-standard in this country, at least as far as political tactics.

With all the corruption and scandal in the GOP lately, as well as a lackluster field of 2008 candidates, it's nice to see the Republican party relying on what it does best: win by playing dirty.

People who vote Republican, do these tactics make you uncomfortable at all? Do you place party above country? When you cast a vote for a GOP candidate, is it in favor of Republicans or in hatred of Democrats?

Eric from SATX you get it..

Can't win, change the rules! The Republican mantra for as long as I can remember. Has the 2-party system done any good at all to offset all of the harm it has caused? Is there any good reason we haven't woken up yet and simply abolished all political parties, and made every politician run as an independent, on their actual beliefs instead of the party line? And to those who say "because the big 2 will never let it happen", I remind you, I asked for not just any reason, but any GOOD reason. The Constitution says if our form of government's not forwarding our interests, we can change it.

To John S. from Chicago:
Article I section 1 clause 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."

That is the original language of the framers. Amendment XII was just a procedural one dealing with the case of a tie.

Also, read Eric's comment posted @ 2:16pm. Astute observation Eric.

Concur with a poster above. It doesn't matter how the votes are split up. When it all comes down, the American citizen voters are still left out.

Whomever said start at the Federal level and "make" states obey - You are a commy! Each state should decide their own outcomes and not rely on the fed.

We should just use the popular vote. What's wrong with that? If numbers don't matter, then why have an election. We might as well have a dictatorship.

"Can’t win, change the rules! The Republican mantra for as long as I can remember. Has the 2-party system done any good at all to offset all of the harm it has caused? Is there any good reason we haven’t woken up yet and simply abolished all political parties, and made every politician run as an independent, on their actual beliefs instead of the party line? And to those who say “because the big 2 will never let it happen”, I remind you, I asked for not just any reason, but any GOOD reason. The Constitution says if our form of government’s not forwarding our interests, we can change it."

How are you gonna change it? Revolution? Good luck with that one, youd be dead before you even set foot on capitol hill or the white house. Through Voting? Too many people in this country are brainwashed into the two party line. Remember third parties are a wasted vote? Im not saying I dont agree with you, I just dont see how it can be practically done.

Yeah the Constitution says we can change our system, but unless you are willing to start a war that youll lose, were stuck with it.

If you're going to change one state, then you have to change all of them.

lets do the same to florida, texas, ohio, or maybe just do away with the electoral college and elect our leader by who wins the popular vote…. wait, that is way to democratic. The Rebulicans will do anything to get power, they care less about "The people" then they do about getting good lobbying jobs when they are done so they can pay for lifestyles that the majority of americans can only see on TV, not that the Dems are much better. Come on America, wake up, black, white, gay, straight, pro life, pro choice, it is now rich people dealing the cards with us losing more and more control everyday, goverment is now like vegas, they take you no matter who you are and they could give a sh^*& less about who you are as long as you play thier game. Its time, a middle class party with people that just want to survive without hassele or worry on a day to day basis. Don't let them divide us anymore. Its time to come together and end this control of big business and big ego. My rant is over!

There is a bill like this currently making its way through NC’s legislature.

Or to keep it consistent with what the US government is actually empowered to do without a constitutional amendment….

It would be irresponsible for one state, especially one as large as California, to do it on its own, without some amount of offsetting by similar activities in other states.

Eric, SATX

You have the best evaluation of the proposal. The ec was designed to level teh playing field. The current system doesn't.

So wait - Los Angeles is going to have the same amount of electoral votes as some po-dunk county? I don't think so.

Urban centers vote democrat because they are more in tune with what people need as opposed to rich, republican toys, such as Ford trucks.

The Republicans are at it again. They will stop at nothing to win. They've already been highly successful in Texas. I say get rid of the Electoral College and stick with the popular vote.
The people of this country deserve better and need to have their vote count regardless if it is Republican, Democrat or an independent party.

What if we actually held an election and NOBODY VOTED? Who would be President, then? Maybe we need to start a petition to take OUR COUNTRY BACK and simply do away with public office. It doesn't seem to bring anything but scandal, which breeds hatred, which destroys our country.

The way the article is worded adds a fear factor quality. I love the quote at the end…

“If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008,”

Does this mean leaving the system as it is now guarantees a Democrat wins the White House? Then explain how Bush won his second term please.

The proposal actually sounds more equitable. It makes an individual's vote more meaningful in each district. Instead of the populous areas deciding for the entire state all of the districts will now have a say. How is that being undemocratic?

This proposal also strengthens the reasons behind the electoral college, which is written into the constitution of a reason. If the electoral college were removed then the most populous states would decide for the entire country. States like Alaska and Idaho would have no say at all.

Would the people in Florida want New York and California making all the decisions for them? I doubt it very highly. The Bible belt would have a very limited impact on our government if it were not for the electoral college.

I guess there is good and bad with the electoral system after all.

This Republican says leave Electoral College votes the way it is…
Stop tinkering it.