CNN

As a California voter, I disagree with this proposition in that it will reduce California's clout in presidential elections. We have 10% of the population of this country. Assuming we voted 50% Rpublican and 50% Democratic, the electoral vote would be split down the middle. This would give us less of an electoral footprint than states with tiny populations, such as Maine.

In terms of the needs of this state for clout in the Oval Office, it would make us a nullity. Unless the US abolishes the electoral college, this State should not split its vote.

Craig Jamesburg, NJ:

Clinton won the popular vote in both of his elections. IN FACT, the only presidents to lose the popular vote but still win the presidency were:

Adams, JQ, 1824
Hayes, 1876
Harrison, 1888
Bush, GW, 2000

Please check your facts before posting. Thank you.

"Leave it to the Republicans to try to bend/change the rules so they can hold power."

~ Jeff, Richmond, VA

- – - – - – -

Jeff (and anyone else crying it's a "Republican trick"),

The ENTIRE state of California (Democrats, Independents, Republicans, Green-Party, etc) would vote on this initiative. It doesn't matter if you people living in other states like it, hate it, agree or disagree – YOU'RE NOT A CALIFORNIA VOTER.

It's really amazing to see the lack of understanding about how this country became a Union – and the emphasis on preserving States' Rights.

The majority of Americans learned about "Impeachment" thanks to President Clinton. Perhaps this initiative will teach many about States' Rights.

This is a great initiative! It's about time that California really matter. This will make it more fair and thus not waste half the State votes. Let's apss this one

Only in the Repug bizarro world is a Dem win by more than 7 million votes a loss. Staggering!!!

Craig of Jamesburg, NJ writes:

“Also folks let's not forget that Clinton too lost the popular vote in 1996, yet I don't hear any of you crying foul about that.”

For the record, the popular vote in the 1996 election was:

Bill Clinton 47,400,125
Bob Dole: 39,198,755

In this modern world of search engines, how much effort does it really take to check our facts?
Name-calling and invented statistics do not advance the American political dialogue.

I think that this should be how it works in every state, since it would do more to ensure that every voter's opinion is counted. Under the current system, if a candidate receives 51% of the votes, what about the other 49%?

Leave it to the Republicans to try to bend/change the rules so they can hold power. These people just don't know how to be good losers, do they? The entire party has adopted Richard Nixon-esque morals and strategies to try to stay in power. They don't care about Democracy. The modern day Republican party is the most un-American entity that exists in the U.S. today. What ever happenned to putting the country first? They know nothing of sacrifice, unless it's sacrificing poor soldiers' lives for the Republican's own personal egotisical purposes. Bush and Cheney ought to be tried for high crimes against the State.

Several folks have suggested that this would be an appropriate way to go–dividing electoral votes by congressional district–but in order to be fair, it would have to be applied entirely across the board (all 50 states) and redistricting would have to be taken out of partisan hands. Let me give you a concrete example of how this system could be incredibly unfair and in fact damaging to our democracy. John Kerry won the state of Michigan fairly decisively in 2004, 51-48%, basically a reverse of the national popular vote. Therefore, he won all of Michigan's 17 electoral votes. However, if Michigan had had the system in place that NE and ME have (and now possibly CA will soon have) John Kerry would still have won the popular vote by that fairly decisive margin, but he would have only taken 7 electoral votes, while George Bush would have taken 10. This is because Michigan's districts were constructed very carefully by its Republican legislature to pack Democratic voters into a few districts, thereby maximizing the number of possible Republican House members. The same situation is present in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc. Surely no one, not even the most partisan observer, would think it fair that one candidate wins a state while the losing candidate takes the majority of that state's electoral votes. Yet that is exactly where we'd be headed.

If we really want to go down this road, every state should also adopt Iowa's model of totally non-partisan redistricting, conducted without an eye to political gain or incumbent protection. Then, at least, everyone would be on an even footing. But somehow I don't foresee that happening any time soon.

My favorite comment so far in this thread is the one by Miland Brown. He wants to re-draw the districts to be 'more balanced', so Democrats always win all fifty five state votes. Seems quite the contradictory statement no?
Also folks let's not forget that Clinton too lost the popular vote in 1996, yet I don't hear any of you crying foul about that.
Since California is looking to give more power back to the voters state-wide you would rather not because ~gasp~ people with different views than yourselves might have say too?!?!?
It's quite a fascist view many of you have, you only want the popular vote to count more when it works in the Dems favor.
Remember folks the way the election shook out last time isn't exactly how it will shake out for every election going forward, and thankfully Bush is gone next year no matter how California's votes are handed out.

Since the start of this Bush Administration, I am not sure that I would trust any policy put forward by the Republican Party.

This is so obviously a last ditch effort to retain control of the White House by any means possible. Democracy, The Law, Liberty and Freedom have all been thrown to the wind as these despots cling to money and power.

As was stated earlier, there are three choices:

1. The system stays the same.
2. All states switch to the system being proposed for California.
3. Use the popular vote method. Everyone in the US gets one vote and the candidate with the most votes becomes president.

It's about time that Red demographics of California have the opportunity to be recognized. Areas which hold little significance, such as San Francisco, over Southern California would justly suffer from years of nondescript political representation of false masses. Californians have carried a stereotypical badge long enough, it’s time way over due for the rest of the Union to see the real diversity that exist here. The States populist is easily large enough to represent both parties, and then some.

I wish they would get rid of the electoral vote. Why vote if your vote doesn't count. In true Democratic system every vote should count. The system now with the electoral vote and popular vote? The popular vote doesn't matter but it should.

The suggestion (by several posters) that eliminating the Electoral College and electing the President by popular vote would somehow throw all political power to larger states and cities is erroneous. The whole point of counting all the votes equally is that for the purposes of national balloting, state borders would cease to matter. Certainly candidates would focus on the larger media markets. They do that now. Rural areas (other than Iowa) get short shrift because there are fewer voters there. This is true within big states as well as small ones. But in a world of mass media every American voter has as much access to candidates as any other. Personal contact isn’t really a factor anymore, except for producing sound bites. No candidate can shake 100 million hands. I’ve voted in every election since 1976 and never met one of the candidates. But my votes in California have never been counted equally with those of voters in Nevada or Rhode Island or Kansas. That undemocratic policy put our current failed administration into power. I’d like to see it changed.

I see this man McCain as more and more irrelevant.

Democrats should pay attention and learn from Republican strategists. This is a really good move for the Republican party – if successful it pulls the teeth from California in the general election, and if not it still ensures that Democrats will need to waste resources fighting it.

As others have stated, it is not really fair unless other states such as Texas adopt similar rules. But we all know that fairness is not a Republican interest, and that changing the rules as required to win is considered ok. Republican – the party of morals and family values. Time for Democrats to wake up.

Maybe every state should split the electoral college vote along popular lines. You get half the popular vote in the state, you get have the electoral college votes. That way people's votes would actually count.

A pure popular vote would allow six states to elect the president and the rest are irrelavent. No one would campaign anywhere but the most populous states. The electoral college, while flawed, gives the smaller states and sections of the country a voice in the process. Winner take all, in the electoral college, is not representative government but pure democracy (which is not what the founding fathers wanted, they actually feared a pure democracy because of the tyranny of a simple majority). Balance is good, representation of the minority is good, and it would definitely draw more to the polls.

If the republican party wants to start messing with the electorial college I think we should get rid of it altogether.

[...] that could affect the 2008 election – along with the priority given to the state as a whole California voters could alter 2008 race. From, [...]

[...] California could change it's ways: California voters are inclined to support a proposed ballot measure that Democratic leaders fear could doom the party's chances of winning back the White House in 2008 by giving Republicans a chunk of the state's large block of Electoral College votes, according to results of a poll released this week. By a margin of 47% to 35%, the Field Poll found voters supported a GOP-inspired ballot measure replacing the state's winner-take-all method for awarding electoral votes with a system that would give one vote to the candidate who won the most votes in each of the state's 53 congressional districts and two votes to the statewide winner. This would damage the Democrats automatically getting 55 votes. [...]

[...] California voters could alter 2008 race [image] Watch CNN's Bill Schneider report how California may throw the 2008 presidential race a major wildcard. [...] [...]

Deep down inside, I bet this is just a political stunt issue that neither side really wants. Sure, it means Democrats have a large edge in Presidential races (not that that has ensured victory), but electoral bloc votes have clout, especially if there's somehow a Democratic president.

This appears to me to be just another good constitution-based mouthing point that gets Republicans elected, but which they never intend to act on– you know, like term limits, balanced budget, abortion and gay marriage, and flag burning amendments that the GOP has schnookered its faihful with for the last 30 years.

I would like any commentor who thinks the popular vote is better than the electoral to explain why they think so.

If we went to popular, wouldn't candidates for President ignore states such as Wyoming, N. Dakota + Alaska? Wouldn't the election basically be called by New York, LA and Chicago ?

To Brett in California,

"It's fair that Democrats can collect all the electoral votes for the state of California but if the electoral votes are split amongst the districts to include the Republican party it is unfair? There are many of us NATIVE Californians who are Republicans (Shocker!). We do not get represented on a national level equally as our Democrat bretheren. If we citizens of California decide to change the way we tally our electoral college votes, it is our business. Do with your state what you wish. Until we have a constitutional ammendment to abolish the electoral college, there is no other fair way to distribute votes in a state this large and diverse. We have the right to run our own state the way we see fit."

I understand your way of thinking; I too am in this situation. The difference is, I live in Texas, a largely Republican state and my Democratic vote never really feels as though it counts. I agree that all votes in Texas should not go to Republicans; however, our state will never change. Republicans know they have the advantage here. We even had Tom DeLay redistrict to reinforce Republican advantage. It's really an unfair system all the way around that encourages voter apathy. I guess I don't understand why the majority of the people in the country voting (popular vote) should not decide who is voted in. People move all over this country now. I grew up in Ohio where my vote was more likely to count. Now I live in Texas and my vote gets squashed every time. I live in a highly populated area and I find it discouraging that my vote has very little relevance. Just because you have highly populated areas, doesn't mean that everyone thinks alike. And voting should be fair or people will quickly become disenfranchised with the whole process. We have spent the last eight years with a president that didn't really stand for the majority of Americans, but was voted in due to a system that appears to need change. Change should happen all the way around, not just a few states that can solidify a particular party over another.

This is a TERRIBLE idea unless all other states adopt this as well

This has nothing to do with bringing more representation to smaller electoral districts and EVERYTHING to do with the GOP desperately trying to hold onto power, sensing that the Dems have the momentum going into 2008.

And for those of you in California, this will make your state even more obsolete

Here's an example, using Calif and OHIO as examples

1. The Repub candidate knows they are going to get 20 free electoral votes just for having their name on the ballot. There is no incentive to campaign there any harder to maybe pick up 22 or 22 instead of 20 and risk losing a winner take all swing state ( like Ohio) when they could spend time and money in Ohio and net 40 electoral votes ( 20 for Cali and 20 for OHio)

2. The Dems will realize they are going to lose 20 electoral votes and will cut their losses, knowing they will have to campaign even harder elswhere just to make up for the votes they lose in california. Again, there is no incentive to spend more time and money in california to maybe pick up a few more votes and risk losing a state like Ohio, when they need Ohio's votes just to break even.

In essence the GOP will say, "Thanks California for my free electoral votes I didn't even have to work for!" as they campaign in other states

The Dems will say, "Thanks alot California! (sarcasm intended). Now I have to campaign elsewhere just to make up for this!."

Once again the corrupt and morally bankrupt Republican Party will try anthing to steal an election or stay in power.

Their new motto is "if you can't win by playing by the rules, change the rules".

And this is the religious right? There are tears in heaven.

Jon in Sacramento,
I'm guessing that you are trying to tell me that because the state legislature allows ballot propositions, the legislature is determining how the votes are decided. Am I right?
Also, regarding your previous post, I don't disagree when you say the California plan is more fair (if you ignore the fact that 90% of the districts are gerrymandered to be safe for one party), but there is no way that it is fair if only a few states do it. I live in North Carolina.(not New York.) North Carolina is also considering this type of system. While here it would mean a shift of 3-6 votes instead of around 20, I still am against this plan (even though it would benfit my party) because it is simply unfair.

Posted By Joe in NC: "This plan for California's electoral votes IS unconstitutional. Article two, section one, clause two of the constitution states:"

Sorry dude. As much as I would like to agree, it complies with the Constitution. A referendum, or any item on the ballot for public vote, has to be ratified by the state legislature. If Californians vote to pass this referendum the state legislature will ratify it and in so doing will comply with the Constitution.

And all you guys crying that the evil republicans are stealing the presidency will do well to remember all the people of California, democrat, republican, and independant, will have voted either to accept the referendum or reject it. No one is stealing anything. It will be the people of California that voted to make the change. Welcome to democracy.

As a Democrat from California, I am not worried about this at all. It is an obvious attempt by Republicans to steal more elections, and will backfire. NOW they are concerned about popular vote distribution? Give me a break. Nobody will buy it, nobody will appreciate the unfairness of it, and the resulting uproar and Democratic Party-backed lawsuits (already in the works based on what I hear) will 1) delay the change so far past 2008 that it will be moot and 2) cause such political turmoil and fallout that it will either make the GOP look like ruthless, mercenary fools and or cause every other state to adopt the same system...either scenario is favorable to liberals in the long run.

Joe in NY,

You wrote, "Only the state's legislature can determine how electoral votes are decided. The California plan would be implemented by a referendum."

Joe, before deciding to veto California's Ballot Proposition approach to legislation – you MIGHT want to read how/why the process IS legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition

Maybe in NY the tail wags the dog – but us Californians are quite serious about our Ballot initiatives. Ask Gray Davis what he thinks!

This idea from California is interesting, and quite possibly the most fair. Why should millions of Republican voters in California have their vote mean nothing in a presidential election? I was born and raised in New York, and I've always felt that the winner-takes-all system discourages people from voting (people from both sides. As a Democrat, NY will be blue for sure, so why vote? As a Republican, NY will be blue for sure, so why vote?)

As to the novelty of this system, I would like to point out that Maine and Nebraska already do this. The winner of each congressional district gets one vote, and the state-wide winner gets two votes for the senators. It's not that complicated. Granted Nebraska only has 5 electoral votes, and Maine only has four. But the system should work just as well for a large state like Cali.

I agree with others who say if this is to be done in California then all states must do it. Of course, the Republicans will never support that idea because Democrats would then win every election.

The Electoral College was designed to give every state, big or small, an fair chance at helping select a president. If you abolish the Electoral College, candidates will focus their campaigns only on the most populous states, making smaller states all but irrelevant.

To be honest, I'm all for the popular vote since it favors Democrats. But I put country ahead of party, and the Electoral College is better for the country.

All methods of choosing a president are bad, the Electoral College is the best of them.

Everyone wants their vote to mean something. What is the problem with getting rid of the electoral college and going with the popular vote?

The Republicans have consistently proven they are quite adept at manipulation for their own benefit. We have consistently seen George W. arrogantly 'spin' and 'twist' to rationalize, deceive, cover and to 'just move on' as they focus on the pursuit of a private agenda greatly benefiting Special Interests and a select few and while they provide only subterfuge, apathy and the costs to the average American. Now they are looking to 2008 and beyond with several candidates looking to take the baton from President Bush, to continue to get the support, contributions and the backing that facilitates their actions while they in return pursue the causes of the rich and powerful few. Fred Thompson is already adept at following a script, Guiliani is naturally also capable of subordinating himself and all of them have been strongly suportive of the Bush policies, which emphasizes that this country just can't take 'more of the same'.

Senator Dodd's position that they shouldn't initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush (and necessarily against Dick Cheney) really neglects to understand that it would send a strong positive message to the world, would be an emphatic warning to future administrations and would be much needed encouragement to the average American. Again, this country just can't take 'more of the same'!

Righty tighty,
This plan for California's electoral votes IS unconstitutional. Article two, section one, clause two of the constitution states:

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 etc.

Only the state's legislature can determine how electoral votes are decided. The California plan would be implemented by a referendum.

As for being unfair, how would you feel if only Texas adopted this type of plan?
That shave off at least 10 votes from the Republican candidate's total.

It's fair that Democrats can collect all the electoral votes for the state of California but if the electoral votes are split amongst the districts to include the Republican party it is unfair? There are many of us NATIVE Californians who are Republicans (Shocker!). We do not get represented on a national level equally as our Democrat bretheren. If we citizens of California decide to change the way we tally our electoral college votes, it is our business. Do with your state what you wish. Until we have a constitutional ammendment to abolish the electoral college, there is no other fair way to distribute votes in a state this large and diverse. We have the right to run our own state the way we see fit.

Posted By John from VA: "National popular vote wins the presidency. Enough said."

The city of New York alone has a larger population than the entire state of Virginia. So, you don't mind cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago deciding who the president is going to be? States like Alaska and Montana, which have less than a million people each, would have no voice at all in who the leader of this country is.

The candidates would only have to campaign in the large metropolis areas. The rural South like Louisiana wouldn't matter. Who cares what Mississippi has to say with their measly 2 million people when I can get over 8 million votes just campaigning in New York city alone?

I'll spend every campaign cent winning over three cities, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago with their combined 15 million voters. The swing votes would be cities like Houston, Philadelphia, and Phoenix. All of those cities comprise a whopping 20 million votes, twice as much as all the South Eastern states combined. The bible belt would have no say at all in who leads this nation.

The presidential election would not be a national election. It would be an election decided by a handful of large cities.

That is exactly why the forefathers wrote the electoral college into the Constitution, so that large populace areas do not dictate law to the low populace rural areas.

All the states should adopt this system. But the republicans will probably cry foul in those states where they always win. It is time to adopt a more fair system. Either a national popular vote or assigning the electrol votes. If we have only a few states doing this and the republicans resisting it in states where they have generally held the advantage, how is that fair.

Where is the democratic party in this? Maybe they should be proposing this in Texas, Florida and Ohio. The party should be starting a petition drives in these states to change it there. Challenge the republicans at their own game.

It is amazing to see how many people want to just do away with the EC. I do think we could create a better way, but up to now that has not been done. The EC gives equal weight to the smaller less populated states, otherwise the largest (populated) states would decide for the entire nation, that is just foolish thinking.
The possibility of spliting the larger EC states could have some reasoning, but would only muddy up the already muddy waters.

What this really does is weaken the importance of California in the electoral process. Contrary to ensuring the candidates come to California, the proposal is likely to keep them away. Campaigning hard for 55 electoral votes makes sense. Campaigning hard in the hope you can swing a few districts does not.

Both of these plans are horrible and will not pass...California democrats would be idiots to support any of these proposals...

It's a stupid idea. Californians think they can change the rules without consequence or permission or equality of the same rules in all the other states. It won't happen. It's another dumb idea from Swartezneggar, who can't figure out the difference between Republican and Democrat. Too much botox in the brain.

THINK ABOUT IT, 2000 FLORIDA,2004 OHIO, 2008, CALIFORNIA.THE SLIME BALL REPUB,S JUST WANT TO STEAL ANOTHER ONE. LIKE TOM DELAY JERRYMANDERED THE DISTRICTS IN TEXAS, SO IT WOULD ALL BE IN THE REPUBLICANS FAVOR.

I believe Texas and Florida have the ability to change their laws just like California. I live in Maine and the system makes sense. It gives those in Northern Maine as much of a vote as those of us in Southern Maine. It may change the predicted outcomes but it also might make candidates work harder for California's votes which is it's intent.

The popular vote concept has never been a good one based on the fact it would encourage more redistribution of wealth by both parties in an attempt to buy off the majority of the voters. The electoral college is just another portion of the checks and balances on our government.

As it stands the current tax laws are completely unconstitutional based on the fact the Constitution calls for uniform taxation. And unless you think 1+1=275 our current taxation is anything but uniform.

The Electoral College was and remains a very good idea. It prevents someone from winning only a few very populous states. It also prevents running 3rd party candidates from siphoning off votes - a tactic that big city machines have used for years. It ensures that any person must get a broader consensus from STATES to get elected. States are the entities that comprise our federated republic, not people. Doing away with the Electoral College will help ensure that a few big states like California, Texas, and New York will dominate elections far more than they do now. Remember the last 2 presidential elections, where even New Mexico was considered a swing state? You can forget that any small state will mean anything with direct election. The founding fathers might just have been a tad smarter than we modern "know it alls" give them credit for.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but doesn't Article II of the United States Constitution say that "Each state shall appoint, IN SUCH A MANNER AS THE LEGISLATURE THEREOF MAY DIRECT, a number of Electors...."

It seems to me that a ballot initiative doesn't pass constitutional muster. At the very least the state legislature should make a strong attempt to keep this off the ballot.

Should that fail – and should the initiative pass – I think that the wording in Article II would be enough to put the plan on hold while appeals are filed.

Are there any lawyers out there who can tell us if this initiative is constitutional?

People should quit dreaming: the Electoral College will never be eliminated, because there will never be 13 small states stupid enough to throw away the advantage that the system gives them versus larger states. People who think this way remind me of the Republicans who tried to impeach Bill Clinton - they can't count votes.

There is NO federal office that is elected on a "one person, one vote" basis or even a direct proportion. (thinking people will understand that even the House districts are not apportioned this way by comparing a district in California with the one in Montana.)

States are the constituents in the Federal system, not people. I get so sick of hearing "But I thought we lived in a democracy" - it is easy to see who was sleeping in Govt. class.

If California wants to do this, that is their business. Whether I think the measure is stupid or not isn't an issue.

CNN Moderator – WHY are you removing posts from CA voters on this subject?

I posted this statement which you deleted:

As a California vote I say YESSSSSSS BABY!

I do find the partisan comments humorous. In 2000 people cried about Gore getting more votes and should be President. Yet when California wants to allocate electoral votes based on the vote in California – these same people cry foul?

Where do I sign up to make this happen with our electoral vote? If this passes finally all of California's votes will
make a difference. More people will
vote and that is a good thing.

National popular vote has to be the worst idea ever!

All that would do is empower the highly populated states and leave all others out in the cold. In case anyone forgot we are a REPUBLIC not a mob controlled democracy.

This new measure long overdue and would give every district in a state a chance to have it's voice heard.

Hopefully other states will follow Nebraska, Maine, and (hopefully) California so Americans can have a voice in their own government again.

I believe that this ballot amendement would be fair only if the Republicans would be receptive to the idea that this proposal be adopted by EVERY STATE. If Republicans agree to this condition then and only then should this become LAW. This proposal would be fair only at that time.

The President is elected the states in accordance to their representation in Congress (Senate + House). It is then up to the states to decide how its representation is split up among the Presidential candidates. There isn't really an issue of "fairness" here. I can see the practical concern that the effective result will be for 20+ of California's electoral votes to go towards the Republican candidate, but this would also allow third party candidates to start scoring some significant electoral votes and get a bit more recognition. Even though I'll probably vote Democratic in the upcoming election, and I'm a California voter, I'd support this ballot initiative on idealistic grounds.

National popular vote has to be the worst idea ever!

All that would do is empower the highly populated states and leave all others in the cold. In case anyone forgot we are a REPUBLIC not a mob controlled democracy.

This new measure long overdue and would give every district in a state to have their voices heard – not just the districts with large cities.

Hopefully other states will follow Nebraska, Maine, and (hopefully) California so Americans can have a voice in their own government again.

If you simply go by the popular vote that means that the winner must win approximately 150 million votes. How do you get 150 million votes? Well, you go to the East Coast and you go to the West Coast. Not simply because of the huge population, but because that is where the big money is. Here are some numbers for you:

Top 9 states population:
California 36,132,147
Texas 22,859,968
New York 19,254,630
Florida 17,789,864
Illinois 12,763,371
Pennsylvania 12,429,616
Ohio 11,464,042
Michigan 10,120,860
Georgia 9,072,576
Total 151,887,074

The other 41:
Total 144,523,330

Where do you think candidates will spend most of their time?

Top 9 states (by population)GDP (millions of dollars):
California 1,727,355
Texas 1,065,891
New York 1,021,944
Florida 713,505
Illinois 589,598
Pennsylvania 510,293
Ohio 461,302
Michigan 381,003
Georgia 379,550
Total $6,850,441.00

The other 41:
Total $6,298,592.00

Where do you think candidates will spend most of their time?

Ever heard of the term "fly-over states"? We have the Electoral College for a reason. It may not be perfect, but it does give the less-populated states a little more influence.

Facts from:
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/

Population by state from http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html

We should get rid of the EC. This way, a third-party or independent candidate could actually play a meaningful role in the electoral process.

Winner-takes-all favors the two established parties to the detriment of all others.

Why don't all states do this?

What a bunch of babies you all are.

Each state has the right to do what they want with their electoral college voters. If this is what california wants to do, then they can and should.

Democrats are always whining about something – but to complain about giving more representation to the people and to oppose an initiative that Californians appear to favor is just another example that winning is everything and that representing the citizens of the country is irrelevant.

This idea might sound good on the surface, but one finds that it smells of Republican election rigging.

This is taking the already bad idea that the electoral college has been from day one and moving our voting rights back even further! Suddenly, we are telling MILLIONS of voters in our dense, urban city centers that their votes are weighed no more heavily than a handful of farmers living in some small district out in the desert.

That is NOT right, and this is nothing more than a desperate Republican Party realizing that their only hope for victory in the 2008 Presidential Election is through conducting even more fraud in the political process.

Tom Delay and Karl Rove would be proud.

Republicans are some sneaky bastards!

Funny how they claim a poll taken in California was 47% to 35% in favor, thta's not true. California won't go for this unless they tear down the electoral college completely and make this apply to all states.

Combine this idea with the gerrymandering of districts that has been going on for decades, and you will end up with a system where 99% of electoral votes are decided before the election even takes place, based on party affiliation alone.

This system tries to replace the broken system with one that's even more broken. The only reasonable solution is to scrap the electoral college entirely and go with strict popular vote.

Either change, to the Republican proposed by-district allocation, or the Democratic proposed all-to-popular-winner allocation, should be contingent on a majority of the available electoral votes being allocated the same way. It is not fair if California adopts the by-district plan, but Texas, Florida, New York, and Ohio are winner-take-all.
Democrats need to educate Californians about how much they are about to loose if this proposal is adopted.

How about we just split California into two states? Then there's no arguement about fair vs. unfair – and their votes are split. California is just too darn big anyway.

The proposed system is a good idea–but only if all the other states agree to do the same.

Soundz like a good idea to me. I thought the libs were all about following the Constitution.

Typical GOP bull****. Do they ever stop trying to screw us?

California has a good start, but the reality is this WILL change the next election in other ways. Encouraging the republican vote while discouraging democratic & independent votes is the drastic downside.

California should tie it's changeover conditional upon a Republican-bent state (such as Texas) implementing the same policy. Otherwise, it's just political gerrymandering at it's worst.

oops! , I had a typo in my previous post, my example of the 2004 election and Palm Beach county should read 2000.

Chip

Before we all go calling for the end of the electoral college, please step back and take a good look at the system. It actually is one of the most clear ways to insure that the majority of interests can be shared across an entire state. Removing the electoral college to a simple straight state-wide vote would mean that presidents could simply focus only on big city population, completely alienate a considerable amount of the rural population, and still be elected with a landslide. Electoral considerations vs. straight votes provide that all areas and all districts count the same. A district in the middle of NYC will count the same as rural NY in the final voter tally. It insures that the president is the candidate that was able to obtain the approval of a majority of distinct interests across a state. That is what best insures democracy and true representative government.

A few comments I've found here and around 'the Ticker' on this subject.

What a revolutionary idea from California!

Actually, Nebraska and Maine have already adopted the system

... those who are typically red states would refuse because that would lessen the Republican advantage.

Actually, it would probably have the opposite effect. I've provided two links below showing county-by-county results. If presidents were elected on square mileage of regions voting for them, 'blue states' would occupy roughly 23% of the land mass of the United States.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm
ttp://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

b>We're also a lot better educated about the process after TWO goes at having our electoral process stolen from us.

Apparently that was fixed in 2006, since we didn't hear much about votes being rigged then. Or is that because the squeakiest wheel gets the grease.

I found it pretty amazing in 2004, while living in Florida that even before the returns started coming in, there was a vocal group in Palm Beach county that knew the vote couldn't be right (their guy didn't win) and their vote was miscounted. The reason, the ballots were confusing. These were not "English as a second language" citizens, quite the contrary. They were well healed members of a gated community, you know, the kind where a group of them go out to lunch, have all of their food put on one check but can calculate each person's tab (including gratuity) in their head without a calculator and git it right.

There have been allegations of vote fixing by both sides. Dead-guys, felons, illegals, whoever you can get to the polls.

The links to the maps shown above prove that you can almost become president if you carry New York City, Miami,Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, the Quad-Cities, Los Angeles and the Mississippi River Delta.

Have a good weekend,

Chip

The electoral system is not democratic It's not even representative.

One person, one vote, right?

In the current distribution of electoral votes throughout the country, it works out that a person's vote is worth more or less than a single vote, depending on the state in which they reside. For example, in Wyoming or D.C., an individual's vote is worth roughly 3 times the amount of a single vote, while in California and Florida a person's vote is worth only 83 to 84 percent of a single vote.

It's true. If you compare the percentage of the electoral college votes that each state has to the percentage of the population that each state has, you'll come up with the same numbers.

In 2004, red states had 51.68% of the population, but 53.16% of the electoral votes. Blue states had 48.32% of the population, but only 46.84% of the electoral votes.

The system is already skewed to favor red states in every presidential election.

Just another example that illustrates the absurdity of "states rights." I think we are all from the same country. My vote is for uniformity!

This process would actually put all of our states back in play, giving hope that all of our votes count.

It should not be rushed into before next election as it should be for all of the states if it is going to be done.

And I personally don't want to hear the whining "the election was stolen" after the Republicans again win the White house.

I believe it was one of the New York papers that actually paid to have Florida recounted and Bush came up the winner (again), not sure if that count included the absentee military votes that Gore wanted thrown out.

Bush is an idiot, but he did win.

I would like to add one more comment. The states are allowed to allocate their electoral votes in any manner which they see fit. There has been a history of states not using a winner-takes-all approach, though over the years, it has become an easier and more accepted process. There is nothing in the Constitution that instructs how a state can allocate their EVs, nor has there been a Supreme Court ruling against such a practice (which is why two states already do so). In this case, it is the state that allowing their citizens to vote for the change. If the citizens of the state wish to change how their government allocates their EVs, it is their will to do so. Additionally, one state cannot force another state to change the way they allocate their EVs. If you think your state should do so, then you would need to contact your district representative or start up a campaign for change.

our democracy slipping further away! America wake up and take your country back.

Why are all of the Democrats so concerned about this proposal?

The way the media has portrayed the current administration, I thought the 2008 Presidential Election was all but won by Hillary & Co.

Sounds to me like there are a few concerns about Hillary being able to carry the rest of the country.

I Think we all need a history lesson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

Then decide...both arguments are valid and should be discussed by the 'public', not pundits or politicians...this is 'our' system to run the country and we might want to re-examine how we go forward. But I definitely believe this should take place after the 08 Election to give every state a chance to examine this issue. Truthfully this debate should have taken place in 2001.

I don't see how any democrat or republican or a third party would be against this. This is only fair. Can someone please explain to me why we have an electoral college? Doesn't it basically do the same thing that a popular vote would do by awarding the states with the most people more electoral votes, only that it is a winner take all approach state by state? If someone can please explain to me why picking our president through popular vote is a bad, I can't think of a reason?

Going with the popular vote is not a good idea because it just gives both parties incentives to buy off the people to get their vote. And of course buying people requires money which means more social programs and more wealth redistribution.

If people want to talk about unconstitutional practices they can start by the unconstitutional practice of taxing people in different tax brackets. The constiution calls for uniform taxation and that just doesn't exist.

As a California Voter I can tell you YESSSSSS BABY!

Although the partisan remarks are always humorous. In 2000 everyone shouted about Gore getting more votes and therefore should be President. Now, if California says its electoral votes will be allocated based on ACTUAL votes many of those same people cry foul.

I have no idea WHICH party would benefit but I wish this type of allocation would be done nationally. The closer the results reflect the will of the people – the better (even if some times that means Democrats win).

States like California and Texas should be broken up for the purposes of electoral votes. They are far too big to have a winner-take-all system like this. Under the current system, you have two extremely liberal cities (LA and San Fran) that are determining the way the state's votes are cast. A great part of the state remains underrepresented and as a result this would be a very good idea.

Popular vote and % based electoral vote are the same thing. There is only a potential of a slight swing due to rounding. Why not just go to a popular vote? Why not require ALL Americans to vote instead of 10% of us. Then let's make it so Congress can't spend 3/4s of it's term reorganizing congressional districts so their party has better chances each year.

Wait, that's too much corruption to remove in one day.

The disputed 2000 election, in which Bush won the electoral vote — and the presidency — while losing the popular vote, has generated a flurry of proposals to abolish or alter the Electoral College, both at the federal and state level.

-This is the underlying problem with the system....CHANGE IT NOW!!!

GeorgiaVoter said:
"What a revolutionary idea from California! If we vote this in all states, Presidential candadates would be forced to listen to all the people instead of just swing states. I haven't even seen a candidate in my state, how about yours??"

I have not seen ONE single Candidate in my area... and I live in Northern Virginia, the backyard of the White House.....

I agree with everybody:

1. This should go into effect in California AFTER the 2008 election (to be fair to every party iinvolved)

2. It should be implemented in ALL 50 states!!!!!

In fact: Let's get rid of the Electoral Colleges all together!!!!!

The Constitution declares that states can give their electoral votes however they choose. Technically, electors are even allowed to change their votes (the whole safety net). Quite frankly, this should be implemented nationwide, because singular states should not be allowed to determine the election, while the rest of the country's voice is meaningless..

Making such a change is a great idea on a national scale. Having one or two large states change will be a disaster to whichever party normally takes them so long as the rest of the country maintains the "winner take all" system.

Even though it often works to my party’s advantage, (I’m a Democrat), I’ve always thought the winner-take-all system was decidedly undemocratic. Everyone deserves to have their vote count, no matter how much I don’t like it. But I am worried about scrapping winner-take-all in my big blue state when it will still be in place in several big red states. Fair is fair, and we should all be playing under the same rules.

(For those of you outside California, a warning about our initiative system: I know it seems like it gives a voice to the people, but it really screws things up. Any special interest group can collect a few signatures and get an initiative on the ballot. Then both sides spend millions on annoying tv ads, but if the proposal has some appealing name like the Patriotic Freedom and Good Things Act it usually passes and we get stuck with a bad law on the books. I know the country often follows California’s lead, but don’t follow us on this one folks, it’s a trap).

What we need in this country is a national dialogue on election reform. We need to find a constitutional way to limit the influence of big money on our political system without limiting the rights of citizens to contribute to causes they believe in.. We need regional primaries so all the states get a voice in choosing the candidates, not just Iowa and New Hampshire. We need to have electronic voting backed up with a good old-fashioned paper trail. We need to speed up FEC investigations so that violators don’t just get slaps on the wrist five years after they steal an election. We need to shorten the whole election cycle so politicians can stop running every once in a while and actually govern. And we need to eliminate the ludicrous and outdated Electoral College. What’s wrong with just counting the votes and seeing who wins? It would have saved us a lot of trouble in 2000.

This sounds shady. Our government is incredibly corrupt.

What a revolutionary idea from California! If we vote this in all states, Presidential candadates would be forced to listen to all the people instead of just swing states. I haven't even seen a candidate in my state, how about yours??

There should be NO winner takes all states! Each candidate should be awarded one electoral vote for each congressional district carried and two for each state carried!
That's the most fair way to make sure votes count, AND it would encourage candidates to campaign in more states than just the swing states.

I think this is a good idea only if every state did it. Otherwise it is just not a fair system. Though, if California were to change, then many other states would follow ... though I guess those who are typically red states would refuse because that would lessen the Republican advantage.

Heck, I think the whole electoral vote system should be tossed and the president elected by popular vote. All the electoral vote was supposed to do was to act as a safety and prevent the election of a person who should not be president, and we all see how well that worked out.

I think this it is a good idea for California to be able to split its vote, however, the measure should not be allowed to go into effect until after the 2008 presidential election to avoid the concern that this is just being done for the purpose of effecting the 2008 election rather than for improving representation of the State's voters.

Splitting the vote in California could promote a shift toward the center in the republican party. That would be a good thing.

This isn't right- the rule should be that every state has to do it the same way. If California is going to split elctoral votes then Texas should too.

The Electoral College has created these stupid situations in a few states. I think it is time to abolish the EC in favor of the popular vote winner.

Another reason why the Electoral College system should be abolished or effectively neutralized by giving all electoral votes in every state to the national popular winner. The political parties are playing games with our votes. We should not let them do that!

My only adjustment that I would make the proposed legislation is that the change doesn't go into effect until the 2012 election. That way, the various parties (including third parties) can adjust their campaign networks and strategies properly, rather than rushing around in an already chaotic election cycle.

Its unconstitutional!!

No wait..., its illegal!
No wait..., its not the right thing to do!
No wait..., its, its.., making me cry!

Sweeeet.

These means that the Democrats AND the Republicans can no longer take states for granted and have to work hard to win over all the PEOPLE.

Now before the libs start crying foul keep in mind that the left has been trying to do away with the Electoral College and move towards a popular vote.

IMO this is the best compromise for empowering the individual voter while still keeping America a republic. This change is long overdue.

If we are going to change things, I think the Popular Vote should be the deciding factor. Congressional districting of states can be, and has been, manipulated by the political parties in power.

Popular Vote is certainly the best way, in my opinion.

Do not mess with the Constitution. Either directly or indirectly. California's proposal is a measure designed to establish a more "democratic" way to elect the President. Don't do that. With all it's so called unfairness, the Electoral College has served this country well for over 200 years. In a federal system as our's is supposed to be, it is the only way to ensure that the states era represented in the process and not only the highly populated areas.

This change, in only the state of California, would guarantee that a Republican would always be President. It would not be fair. Unless every state used the same system, we would have such a skewed political system that all Democrats would feel disenfranchised and it could spell political turmoil. Californians don't do this. We need a system where everyone feels they have a chance to be represented.

The people of California have the right to award their electoral votes however they see fit. However, unless a Republican state like Texas also adopts a plan like this, the election is going to be unfair. It may be legal but it will make a mockery of the presidential election. Perhaps Democrats should rethink all those safe Democratic and Republican seats in California? Drawing more balanced districts could still get them all 55 electoral votes if the Democratic candidate for president is popular nationally and does well on election night.

I'm all for Electoral College improvements, but *all* the states need to participate (e.g., if California is going to split its votes, Texas and Florida should split theirs, as well). Also, there should be a requirement that states cannot change their election laws at the last minute – six months before the election is *way* too late and, obviously, solely benefits the Republicans here.

....and if this system woul dhave been available in Florida, Bush would have lost the election!!!!!

I propose that this provision be implemented in ALL 50 states.... It will certanly give people in remote areas of the state a BIG SAY in who and how many votes a candidate makes.... and would take the system to as close as "one-person, one-vote" as possible, without eliminating this super-complicated archaic "electoral-votes" middle-man, mumbo-jumbo!!!

Let the cheating begin...

There should be no electoral college.

Is Tom DeLay now living in California? Or did Karl Rove have a hand in this? Why can one state change their format, but others remain the same. I believe it needs to be a one system for all program; which my personal belief is that we should elect based on popular vote, not by using the electoral college. Elections seem so darn corrupt anymore, I believe all of this will just add up to more and more voter apathy. People living in largely partisan areas that "go against the majority" really lack the enthusiasm to vote as it is. We all represent the same country...voting should be reflective of the country as a whole. Get rid of the electoral college and get the candidate in office who represents the majority!!

I can relate to the sentiment of the California Republicans who feel that their votes do not really count in a predominantly blue state. I live in a "red state" and wonder why I bother to vote in the presidential race at all sometimes. Still, in order for this system of splitting electoral votes to truly be fair, every state must adopt the same policy. With this in mind, it makes you wonder why bother with that relic (electoral college) at all! Let every vote truly count!

Republicans are not for the majority at all. This is sad i hope the republicans still lose just because of this. Good job Americans way to change everything again.

It seems strange that the Democrats would oppose this move. In Florida, they insisted that every vote should be counted, whether it was legal or not, and they stated ad nauseum that the will of the people must be followed. So why should the rather large Republican minority in California be forced to give their votes to the Democratic candidate? Is it only the will of felons who vote for the Democrat that should be honored?

If this were a state the tended to vote Republican, even though it had a large Democrat minority, they'd be singing a very different tune.

I agree the timing is not perfect, ignorant Republicans. But there really should be a system in place to capture each voice. Just because lower Califa has a majority of demonic democrats doesn't mean northern Califa should have to deal with it. Either break the state in 2 or give the good people a voice.

Why must California voters continue to make decisions that doom us all?

This idea is ridiculous unless every other state adopts the same system. At that point, we might as well scrap the electoral college altogether. California would end up screwing up the entire process because the candidates would have to fight for each county/district.

Someone fill me in here...but I thought Rove went back to Texas. Makes ya wonder which big corporations are funding this one. It seems that if this takes place in CA, that to be equal, every other state would have to implement a similar system. Better yet, abolish the absurd electoral college system altogether.

National popular vote wins the presidency. Enough said.