CA Electoral College Bill

[Kevin]

What's everybody's view of the CA Electoral College Bill which would give this state's vote's to the nationwide winner of the populer vote my opionion of it is that it's simply undemocratic.     

[nclib]

I would only support it if every state did that. For some states to do that but not others, would really skew the electoral college.

[??????????]

What's everybody's view of the CA Electoral College Bill which would give this state's vote's to the nationwide winner of the populer vote my opionion of it is that it's simply undemocratic.     

Apparently they want to help Republicans.

[MODU]

I do not agree with providing all EVs for a single to whoever wins the national popular vote, even if the majority of that state voted for someone else.  It will minimize the equality of the system, especially for smaller states and unfairly represents the will of the state voters.

[minionofmidas]

There is only one problem with this idea, and that is that there is no uniform standard and, really, no authoritative source, on what the nationwide popular vote actually is.

[Kevin]

I hope this bill get's striked down because it's going to shoot a hole in the heart of what helps democracy in this country.

[MasterJedi]

Well that's a sh**tty bill.

[Kevin]

Well that's a sh**tty bill.

It's saying that CA's voters opionions don't count that is all it praticaly say's. In short it's unconstitutinal.   

[Conan]

The EC is going to be gone in a few years anyway.

[??????????]

The EC is going to be gone in a few years anyway.

And you support that being from NJ? The only states that will really matter if the EC is gone are TX, Calif, Ny, Florida and maybe PA. And any MAJOR metropolitian area. The midwest and plains might as well not bother voting.

[bullmoose88]

The EC is going to be gone in a few years anyway.

And you support that being from NJ? The only states that will really matter if the EC is gone are TX, Calif, Ny, Florida and maybe PA. And any MAJOR metropolitian area. The midwest and plains might as well not bother voting.

States won't matter err States..

As you said, metropolitan areas will matter...and New Jersey is basically swallowed up by two...NYC Metro (1)...and Philly metro (4th largest or so?)...


seems like a sweet deal for a sh**tty state

[??????????]

The EC is going to be gone in a few years anyway.

And you support that being from NJ? The only states that will really matter if the EC is gone are TX, Calif, Ny, Florida and maybe PA. And any MAJOR metropolitian area. The midwest and plains might as well not bother voting.

States won't matter err States..

As you said, metropolitan areas will matter...and New Jersey is basically swallowed up by two...NYC Metro (1)...and Philly metro (4th largest or so?)...


seems like a sweet deal for a sh**tty state

That would guarantee a Republican would never hold the White House again...I'm sure you'd approve of that though.

[bullmoose88]

The EC is going to be gone in a few years anyway.

And you support that being from NJ? The only states that will really matter if the EC is gone are TX, Calif, Ny, Florida and maybe PA. And any MAJOR metropolitian area. The midwest and plains might as well not bother voting.

States won't matter err States..

As you said, metropolitan areas will matter...and New Jersey is basically swallowed up by two...NYC Metro (1)...and Philly metro (4th largest or so?)...


seems like a sweet deal for a sh**tty state

That would guarantee a Republican would never hold the White House again...I'm sure you'd approve of that though.

Zing...ouch.

It might mean that a staunch conservative would never hold the White House again. (Since what Republican and Democrat mean can change).

What would happen is, your two major candidates would campaign in densely populated areas (since its easier to hit one spot for 8 million people) than thousands of locales in sparsely populated areas.

Its still up to those people in the "heartland" to get out and vote...unless they want the country dominated by the Coastal Establishment.


I'm personally infavor of a Maine-Nebraska system.

[ATFFL]

=
I'm personally infavor of a Maine-Nebraska system.

So you like Gerrymandering?

[they don't love you like i love you]

The EC is going to be gone in a few years anyway.

And you support that being from NJ? The only states that will really matter if the EC is gone are TX, Calif, Ny, Florida and maybe PA. And any MAJOR metropolitian area. The midwest and plains might as well not bother voting.

Those states might as well not bother voting now under the EC. How is a vote in South Dakota or Montana going to make a difference?

The only states that matter under the EC basically are Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The EC is going to be gone in a few years anyway.

And you support that being from NJ? The only states that will really matter if the EC is gone are TX, Calif, Ny, Florida and maybe PA. And any MAJOR metropolitian area. The midwest and plains might as well not bother voting.

States won't matter err States..

As you said, metropolitan areas will matter...and New Jersey is basically swallowed up by two...NYC Metro (1)...and Philly metro (4th largest or so?)...


seems like a sweet deal for a sh**tty state

That would guarantee a Republican would never hold the White House again...I'm sure you'd approve of that though.

Who won the popular vote last election?

[bullmoose88]

=
I'm personally infavor of a Maine-Nebraska system.

So you like Gerrymandering?

I'm not necessarily opposed. The system could use non-partisan boards to set the districts

[Kevin]

I want the system kept the way it is.

[Citizen James]

What dimwit came up with this idea?  Was it a far leftie still protesting 2000, or a right-wingnut trying to get California in the GOP collumn?

Granted, dimwitted bills show up in just about all legislatures, with neither a clue nor a chance proposed by some nut with a short sighted agenda and an overblown ego.

[muon2]

The EC is going to be gone in a few years anyway.

That was often said after the 1976 election when reform was in the air and an outcome with Ford beating Carter in the EC while losing the popular vote had not been out of the question. Needless to say changes didn't happen then, and I'm not convinced attitudes are any different on this subject than they were 30 years ago.

[Conan]

The EC is going to be gone in a few years anyway.

And you support that being from NJ? The only states that will really matter if the EC is gone are TX, Calif, Ny, Florida and maybe PA. And any MAJOR metropolitian area. The midwest and plains might as well not bother voting.

New Jersey is the most densly populated state in the country. NJ will be on the top of politicians lists if the EC is gone. Those big states (PA, TX, FL) of populations spread out so it wont get as much attention as we would. NJ is one big metro area.

[Conan]

The EC is going to be gone in a few years anyway.

And you support that being from NJ? The only states that will really matter if the EC is gone are TX, Calif, Ny, Florida and maybe PA. And any MAJOR metropolitian area. The midwest and plains might as well not bother voting.

States won't matter err States..

As you said, metropolitan areas will matter...and New Jersey is basically swallowed up by two...NYC Metro (1)...and Philly metro (4th largest or so?)...


seems like a sweet deal for a sh**tty state

Oh No you didnt. NJ is better then PA. examples go to the post specifically on NJ in the US General Discussion.

[dazzleman]

Terrible idea, and probably unconstitutional.

[they don't love you like i love you]

There's nothing unconstitutional about it. States can allocate electors any way they want. But it's not a good idea unless every state did it.

[dazzleman]

There's nothing unconstitutional about it. States can allocate electors any way they want. But it's not a good idea unless every state did it.

You're right that every state would have to do it for it to be fair.  And since that will never happen, then it's a bad idea.

It could cause a constitutional crisis in a case in which the popular vote were so close that it could reasonably be disputed.  This could lead to 50-state recounts (since margin would matter even in states where there was a wide margin of victory for a certain candidate) before individual states could resolve how to assign their electoral votes.  And I think it's well outside the spirit of the constitution to effectively have people in other states determining how a state assigns its electoral votes.  While a state can use any method it wants (though Democrats were sure not arguing this when the Florida legislature talked about assigning the state's electoral votes to Bush in 2000 regardless of the outcome of the recounts), I think it goes without saying that it should somehow be representative of the people of that state, not 49 other states.

In sum, a terrible idea.  California is going off the deep end lately.  It's scary what has happened to that state.