California's attempt to end run the Constitution

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A useless anachronism that prevents a handful of large cities from usurping control of the Federal Government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, as long as we're not scaremongering. I've never heard someone claim the undemocratic nature of the EC as it's main virtue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the Federalist papers.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
A useless anachronism that prevents a handful of large cities from usurping control of the Federal Government.

[/ QUOTE ]

But most of the population lives in that handful of large cities.

[hmkpoker]

Hold on a second, am I to understand that whichever candidate gets the biggest popular vote is the one that will win all of California's 55 electoral votes?

If that is the case, this is a triumph for Republicans and a serious WTF for the Democratic party. California has the most electoral votes in the country by far, and it is a SOLID blue state. In effect, what it does is ensure that, in the event that the REPUBLICANS have the popular vote but the DEMOCRATS would have the electoral vote, the Republicans win the election. The contrary condition, where Dems have the pop and Reps have the elect (like in 2000), is meaningless because the state votes blue anyway.

In principle, it undermines the worth of a Californian's vote by almost 90%, as every yahoo in the rest of the country is now affecting the vote in California, but not the other way around. If I were a Republican, I'd absolutely love this.

I agree that the electoral college is a bizarre, useless anachronism, but unless it is changed at the Federal level, this type of legislation gives a direct edge to whatever party the state doesn't vote for.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Hold on a second, am I to understand that whichever candidate gets the biggest popular vote is the one that will win all of California's 55 electoral votes?

If that is the case, this is a triumph for Republicans and a serious WTF for the Democratic party. California has the most electoral votes in the country by far, and it is a SOLID blue state. In effect, what it does is ensure that, in the event that the REPUBLICANS have the popular vote but the DEMOCRATS would have the electoral vote, the Republicans win the election. The contrary condition, where Dems have the pop and Reps have the elect (like in 2000), is meaningless because the state votes blue anyway.

In principle, it undermines the worth of a Californian's vote by almost 90%, as every yahoo in the rest of the country is now affecting the vote in California, but not the other way around. If I were a Republican, I'd absolutely love this.

I agree that the electoral college is a bizarre, useless anachronism, but unless it is changed at the Federal level, this type of legislation gives a direct edge to whatever party the state doesn't vote for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it not the case that if this law was in effect in '04 and a few hundred thousand votes changed in Ohio, that Bush would have been elected anyway by virtue of California's electoral votes going to Bush? Perhaps the California dems are trying to be principled but in actuality they are reducing the power of their states' electorate. Not smart. Republicans must secretly love this as long as it does not become a trend.

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
If it eventually becomes law, the legislation would take effect only if states with a combined 270 electoral votes _ the number now required to win the presidency _ also agreed to decide the election by popular vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]

If it eventually becomes law, the legislation would take effect only if states with a combined 270 electoral votes _ the number now required to win the presidency _ also agreed to decide the election by popular vote.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just amend the federal constitution to a popular election of the presidency? Perhaps because that would take 3/4 of states I think, and this only takes 1/2, or perhaps way less, since maybe 14 states could have the 270 e.c. votes. Don't know the exact minumum number of states necessary for 270 electoral college votes.

[SLP]

[ QUOTE ]
If it eventually becomes law, the legislation would take effect only if states with a combined 270 electoral votes _ the number now required to win the presidency _ also agreed to decide the election by popular vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take your facts elsewhere. There's no room for them in this thread.

[pvn]

How is this an "end run" around the constitution? The constitution gives the states the power to decide for themselves how their electors will be selected.

Individual voters have more power when their votes are funneled through districts, because their one vote is much more likely to decide the winner in that district, and that district to decide the winner overall than one vote is to affect the winner of the combined total vote.

What happens when the "popular" vote is really, really close? Will California demand a nationwide recount?

[iron81]

PVN is right, the states can allocate their elecoral votes however they want. It is even legal for a state to completely skip the election and pass a law saying: "we award our electoral votes to candidate X." There was actually talk in the GOP controlled legislature in Florida during the recount battle of doing this.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
PVN is right, the states can allocate their elecoral votes however they want. It is even legal for a state to completely skip the election and pass a law saying: "we award our electoral votes to candidate X." There was actually talk in the GOP controlled legislature in Florida during the recount battle of doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that *would* have been unconstitutional in that particular case since the constitution says that whatever method is chosen for selecting electors, the actual selection process has to occur on the same day in every state.