California electoral vote

[saturneptune]

There is a proposal to split California's electoral vote by Congressional district like Maine and Nebraska. It appears it would give Republicans electoral votes they otherwise would not get. Do you think this distorts the purpose of the Electoral College? If three states, why not all?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200708/POL20070820a.html

 

[carpro]

There is a proposal to split California's electoral vote by Congressional district like Maine and Nebraska. It appears it would give Republicans electoral votes they otherwise would not get. Do you think this distorts the purpose of the Electoral College? If three states, why not all?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200708/POL20070820a.html

Possible distortion, yes.

But the Constitution gives control of the election process to the individual states.

 

[EdSutton]

There is a proposal to split California's electoral vote by Congressional district like Maine and Nebraska. It appears it would give Republicans electoral votes they otherwise would not get. Do you think this distorts the purpose of the Electoral College? If three states, why not all?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200708/POL20070820a.html

Does not distort it at all. The Constitution specifically gives this right to appoint the electors to the legislatures of the several states, " in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" (Article II, Section 1, paragraph 2)

To put the proposal "on the ballot" via a "ballot initiative" is probably questionable, however, unless the CA legislature so directed.

"Why not all?"

Ask the state legislatures that question. Apparently, 48 out of 50 currently see no reason to divide the electoral votes by Congressional district. You might also consider that Nebraska has the only "unicameral" legislature among the 50 states (and has had that for over 70 years), for whatever that's worth.

It might also be noted that three current US 'territories', the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia have unicameral 'legislatures' (the DC Council is a de facto legislature), and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is well along the way to that end, as well, having voted by a 5-1 margin, overwhelmingly toward that end in 2005.]

Again, FWIW.

Ed

 

[Hope of Glory]

I think that every state should do this, as I think this would not only not distort the intent (intentional double negative), but would help enforce the intent.

 

[EdSutton]

I think that every state should do this, as I think this would not only not distort the intent (intentional double negative), but would help enforce the intent.

I believe the "intent" was to let the legislatures decide how to appoint the electors.

All the states currently do it by an "election", but that is mandated by the several states, as nowhere is the manner found in the Constitution. I do prefer this, personally, but would not be averse to the legislatures doing this by an entirely different manner.

FTR, our 'national' "right to vote" does not extend beyond voting for the Senators and Representatives, except at the pleasure of the legislatures. "We, the people" have no 'right' to vote for the President and Vice-President (only for Representatives and Senators), except as the legislatures of the states choose to allow.

Ed

 

[JustChristian]

I would like for us to do away with the Electoral College completely and elect Presidents on national popular vote. I believe the Electoral College creates opportunties for fraud.

 

[StefanM]

I think we should go to this system nationwide. An interesting result would be that the President's party and the majority party of House of Representatives would probably always be the same in Presidential election years.

 

[carpro]

I would like for us to do away with the Electoral College completely and elect Presidents on national popular vote. I believe the Electoral College creates opportunties for fraud.

It would require a Constitutional amendment and it will never happen.

 

[EdSutton]

I would like for us to do away with the Electoral College completely and elect Presidents on national popular vote. I believe the Electoral College creates opportunties for fraud.

Actually, this is perhaps the greatest deterrent to fraud, in our system, along with our three branches of Government, and our partially sovereign states.

We do not elect a President of "America", for no such entity exists. We elect a President of "The United States of America".

And we do this apart from destroying the sovereignties of the several states, giving all of them some particular representation, including some slightly greater proportionality to smaller states, consistent with the numerical makeup of the elected Senators and Representatives as 'we' "chuse" the President, including giving de facto 'state' status to the District of Columbia, in the "Electoral College", which term, BTW, is not found in the Constitution.

I am in no way, supportive of any attempt to 'select' the President on the basis of the popular vote, per se. The United States is not, never has been, nor was it ever intended to be "a democracy". It is a Federal Republic, ultimately governed by a Constitution. The Electoral process is coinsistent with a republic. I agree with it, as I have stated above, in different words.

Ed

 

[Hope of Glory]

I would like for us to do away with the Electoral College completely and elect Presidents on national popular vote. I believe the Electoral College creates opportunties for fraud.

A true democracy is a true tyranny.

If we get rid of the EC, then the five most populous cities in the US would control the vote. The EC was instituted for every state to have a voice.

 

[Salty]

A true democracy is a true tyranny.

If we get rid of the EC, then the five most populous cities in the US would control the vote. The EC was instituted for every state to have a voice.

Hope is exactally right. Small states such as the Dakotas, New England, and AZ/NM would never see a presidental candidate.
Here in NY, 1/2 of the population is in NYC. That would mean, most of the campaigning would be in "the City" and not upstate.

I do agree with distributing the electoral votes, but I would rather see it split by % of votes. So if a candidate recived 12% of the states vote, he would recieve 12% of the states electoral votes. Here in NY that would be 4 votes.

Thoughts?

Salty

 

[EdSutton]

A true democracy is a true tyranny.

If we get rid of the EC, then the five most populous cities in the US would control the vote. The EC was instituted for every state to have a voice.

Yep! I agree, basically, especially the part about a true democracy being a true tyranny.

Not sure that the five most populous cities in the US could actually "control" the vote, however. Here are the estimated populations, and that of the United States as of July 1,2006.

New York City -- 8,214,426
Los Angeles ---- 3,849,378
Chicago --------- 2,833,321
Houston -------- 2,144,491
Phoenix --------- 1,512,986
Top five cities - 18,554,602

USA, total ----- 303,755,930

At worst, that is only a little over 6% of the US population.

How about the Metropolitan areas?
Greater NYC --- 18,818,536
LA metro area - 12,950,129
Chi metro area - 9,505,748
DFW metro ar. -- 6,003,967
Phila metro ar. -- 5,826,742
Top five metro - 53,105,122

Now we are getting somewhere. We are at a little over 16%, about the same population as CA and FL combined.


Contrast that with the population of the five most populous states, Est. July 1, 2006

CA ---------- 36,475,549
TX ---------- 23,507,783
NY ---------- 19,306,783
FL ---------- 18,089,888
IL ----------- 12,839,970
5 states--- 110,219,973

USA -------- 303,755,930

36.27%

Electoral votes:
CA ---- 55
TX ---- 34
NY ---- 31
FL ---- 27
IL ---- 21
5 st.- 168

31.23%

I like the electoral system, which gives a small bonus to the individual smaller states, due to getting the electoral votes for the Senators, primarily! Currently, WY and DC get the biggest 'boost' from the Electoral system, while TX and FL take the biggest 'hit'.

Under an all 'popular' vote scenario, the five largest states are over 1/3 of the way, and could potentially be 2/3 of the way to electing the President, just on their own.

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

It ain't broke!!

Ed

 

[Hope of Glory]

I was actually doing some free and loose playing with the numbers as a sort of joke. It assumes that everyone in those cities will vote the same way, with 100% turnout in the cities, compared to the dismally low nation-wide turnout.

But, I was in favor of the EC, even when I lived in a pivotal state instead of the state that I've been living in for the last several years with our 3 measly EC votes. But, living here certainly drives home the importance of it. Even democrats here detest most national politicians and overbearing ways, yet NYC could decide what is "best" for rural Alaska, if the EC were done away with.

 

[777]

You'd need a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, that will never happen.

The article said there was already a non winner-take-all system in place in two other states - this can only help. LA and the Bay Area are delivering that big chunk of votes to that one party, the large cities dominate ALL Left Coast elections.


Even without this change that Kalifornia is turning to the right, and the state's in play for the first time since Reagan.

Reagan....

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

There is a proposal to split California's electoral vote by Congressional district like Maine and Nebraska. It appears it would give Republicans electoral votes they otherwise would not get. Do you think this distorts the purpose of the Electoral College? If three states, why not all?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200708/POL20070820a.html

Just curious. If a state chooses this route (electoral votes on congressional districts) it has two extra electoral votes - what happens to them?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Just curious. If a state chooses this route (electoral votes on congressional districts) it has two extra electoral votes - what happens to them?

Whoops found it. The candidate who gets the greater popular vote gets the extra two votes.