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.

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.

~ 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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

"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 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!."

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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'!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?