http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-legis31aug31,0,4024121.story?coll=la-home-local

Quote :

"A Vote to Quit the Electoral College Legislators pass a bill that could launch a national movement to elect the president by popular vote. SACRAMENTO — Lawmakers sent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill Wednesday that would make California the first state to jump aboard a national movement to elect the president by popular vote. Under the legislation, California would grant its electoral votes to the nominee who gets the most votes nationwide — not the most votes in California. Get enough other states to do the same, backers of the bill say, and soon presidential candidates will have to campaign across the nation, not just in a few key "battleground" states such as Ohio and Michigan that can sway the Electoral College vote. "Frankly, the current system doesn't work," said Assemblyman Rick Keene (R-Chico), the only Republican to vote for the bill. "Presidential candidates don't bother to visit the largest state in the nation…. California is left out." If Schwarzenegger signs the bill — AB 2948 by Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Anaheim) — California will be the first state to embrace the "national popular vote" movement, though legislation is pending in five other states: New York, Illinois, Missouri, Colorado and Louisiana. The California legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes — a minimum of 11 states, depending on population. The governor's office said Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill. Many Republicans spoke against the legislation, arguing that it was an "end run" around the U.S. Constitution and would drive presidential candidates to campaign in big cities and ignore rural areas. "Those who are running for president," said Assemblyman Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), "are going to talk to Los Angeles and San Francisco." ..."

It'll be interesting to see what those crazies on the left coast do with this obviously-elitist piece of legislation. I wonder if teh Governator will sign it.

What, do they think the founders were too stupid to come up with a perfect system we could continue using more than 200 years later or something?

Your thoughts?

8/31/2006 2:40:51 PM

"The conveniences you have been demanding are now mandatory." - Jello Biafra.

8/31/2006 2:56:49 PM

Should be interesting. The situations where in a state election a presidential candidate garners 85% of the vote but the state is forced by law to give all of its electoral college votes to the other candidate would be interesting.

8/31/2006 3:07:36 PM

Quote :

"Under the legislation, California would grant its electoral votes to the nominee who gets the most votes nationwide — not the most votes in California."

Wouldn't it make more sense to divide the electoral votes based on the outcome of the california election? If californians thought their votes didn't count before, now they would sure as hell not count.

8/31/2006 3:10:12 PM

Yeah, I've liked the electoral vote division idea - which pretty much makes it a popular vote contest. The only immediate downside I can think of is the situation were a race is close and they are pretty much doing a Florida/Ohio style recount in all 50 states to make sure the correct percentages are applied.

8/31/2006 3:13:29 PM

^^ Sounds sensible.

Here's another thought I'd add to that. Why not also make the size of the pool of electoral votes a state receives dependent on the number of its voters who fucking vote?

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 3:15 PM. Reason : by population = crap, by VOTING population = ]

8/31/2006 3:14:11 PM

^^
that's one of the reasons this idea sucks. and even under the bill, no Republican would waste much time campaigning in California b/c the persuadable segment of the population isn't large enough to make a lick of difference in the national vote. meaning, by extension, no Democrat would waste much time campaigning there either b/c they'll already have the overwhelming bulk of the votes sewn up

I've always been a fan of the winner-take-all Electoral College system myself, but if California wants to be different they can always use the much-ballyhooed "1 electoral vote per congressional district, 2 for whoever wins the state" system that started gaining publicity back in 2000 

8/31/2006 4:09:22 PM

won't happen

8/31/2006 4:11:21 PM

I agree with the popular vote. I'd rather the presidency be decided by the majority of voters than a few swing states. Of course, since "The California legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes", the bill doesn't mean shit unless it inspires other states.

Quote :

"Wouldn't it make more sense to divide the electoral votes based on the outcome of the california election?"

Probably if everyone did it, but remember that California is majority liberal. They won't vote to give less of their electoral votes to the Democrats.

8/31/2006 4:23:43 PM

I'm pretty curious why a combination of 1337 b4k4's idea and the following wouldn't work:

Quote :

"Why not also make the size of the pool of electoral votes a state receives dependent on the number of its voters who fucking vote?"

8/31/2006 4:29:04 PM

Quote :

"I agree with the popular vote. I'd rather the presidency be decided by the majority of voters than a few swing states."

Hop Diggity! Now to win the election all we gotta do is go down to Alabama and register a million or so dead people to vote and we'll win this thing!

Wont it be fucking hilarious when Alabama suddenly has 100% turnout and 90% of the vote went to George Bush's 3rd term! Whoop Whoop!

Remember, election laws are still administered at the State Level. If Alabama wants to rig its own election process that is Alabama's business, hence why we have an electoral college, so that any state can be as corrupt as it wants and it will have no effect upon the outcome of the election.

To abandon the electoral college is to abandon the federalist system; we'll have federal troops administering the election.

8/31/2006 5:05:28 PM

Then maybe we need to learn a lesson or 2 from Mexico and make vote counting and election oversight a civic responsibility like jury duty. And while we're at it, we should open our elections to international observers.

ps you people need to learn how to read

Quote :

"The California legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes — a minimum of 11 states, depending on population. "

If the biggest 11 states approved this legislation, it wouldn't matter what the other 39 did. They can still divvy up their votes any way they like, the winner of the popular vote would win by default every time.

8/31/2006 6:02:02 PM

maybe that would be a good thing ^. remember the shady election shit going on in FL during the 2000 election and all the recounts. By-golly Jeb Bush just happens to be govenor in Fl what a coincedence.

8/31/2006 6:07:17 PM

Quote :

"Now to win the election all we gotta do is go down to Alabama and register a million or so dead people to vote and we'll win this thing!"

wtf?

Quote :

"hence why we have an electoral college, so that any state can be as corrupt as it wants and it will have no effect upon the outcome of the election."

Is the corruption of 4.6 mil/300 million votes worse than the corruption of 9/538 votes?

8/31/2006 6:43:13 PM

Quote :

"If the biggest 11 states approved this legislation, it wouldn't matter what the other 39 did. They can still divvy up their votes any way they like, the winner of the popular vote would win by default every time."

Not true. As I tried to point out with my ironic sarcasm from Alabama the winner of the election (after the 11 biggest states approve) is the individual receiving the most votes nationwide, counting fraudulent votes cast in Alabama or Illinois, states that to this day have a long tradition of vote fraud.

Quote :

"Then maybe we need to learn a lesson or 2 from Mexico and make vote counting and election oversight a civic responsibility like jury duty. And while we're at it, we should open our elections to international observers."

You are right, this would be ungodly necessary. The Federal Government would NEED to nationalize the voting system, since fraud committed in Alabama would suddenly affect California's electorial votes. Every single vote cast in the entire nation would need to be checked against fraud before California could vote.

And I don't believe such a system would be demonstrably better than the electorial system. The cost of enforcement would skyrocket along with the benefits of fraud nationwide.

Quote :

"Is the corruption of 4.6 mil/300 million votes worse than the corruption of 9/538 votes?"

Yes, because recounting 538 votes is cheap and everyone can easily watch, recounting 300 million is rediculously expensive and reliable oversight will be impossible.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 8:05 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/31/2006 8:02:03 PM

Actually, this system would discourage voter fraud because it would be much less likely to change the outcome of the election.

Localized voter fraud in Alabama or Chicago is much less likely to make a difference in the context of hundreds of millions of legitimate votes counted across the country. And widespread fraud is just about impossible in the US. It is only in the electoral college system that a couple thousand votes in Florida or Ohio can tip the election in one way or the other.

In order for local voter fraud to have any relevance in the general election, the popular vote would have to be incredibly close. Freakishly close. And I don't believe that has ever happened.

8/31/2006 10:28:22 PM

dear lord

please make this happen

8/31/2006 11:46:22 PM

Quote :

"Here's another thought I'd add to that. Why not also make the size of the pool of electoral votes a state receives dependent on the number of its voters who fucking vote?"

This makes so much sense I'm baffled.

(I guess I could see how it doesn't make sense though...)

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 11:54 PM. Reason : LOLL]

8/31/2006 11:53:49 PM

the practice of giving your vote to the popular vote winner only works if everyone signs on. if just cali does it, its basically just giant voter fraud. you would give your vote to whoever the rest of the country has chosen. thats not quite democracy.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 12:39 AM. Reason : 234242]

9/1/2006 12:39:24 AM

I think I like the idea proposed in the first post better than the "divide the electoral votes" idea. I like it because it makes my leftist vote matter, even here in NC where it would normally drown. I like it because fewer people will think of their vote as unnecessary or useless.

9/1/2006 1:06:57 AM

Quote :

"the practice of giving your vote to the popular vote winner only works if everyone signs on. if just cali does it, its basically just giant voter fraud. you would give your vote to whoever the rest of the country has chosen. thats not quite democracy."

It's not exactly voter fraud -- the people of California, via their state representatives, will decide whether or not to include the rest of the nations' votes in their own. That's their choice, and it's not fraudulent except in the case of misrepresentation (which may very well be). And it isn't fraudulent to the rest of the country, because from a non-Californian perspective, we all see equal theoretical benefit.

We may see unequal real benefit, because of which direction California would lead before and after the bill passes. But I think that's where the minimum-states-with-similar-policy clause comes in.

However -- I'm not going to contest the idea that the policy would amplify fraud in places like Alabama and Illinois. It would. And it would be a bigger hassle to recount. And electronic voting machines will probably be used, and they will probably be hacked and swing the vote, though not significantly.

Anyway I think the bill is good because it will wake us back up to our democracy. That will outweigh any negatives like increased fraud, partly because it will make us more vigilant about keeping the vote fair. I think it's the correct next step on the way to direct democracy.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 1:18 AM. Reason : .]

9/1/2006 1:10:02 AM

Quote :

"will decide whether or not to include the rest of the nations' votes in their own"

thats why its fraud

your vote should only depend on how YOU VOTED. if your vote is being routed based on on the choices of the majority, its fraud.


we all know that the founders didnt intend on there being 'battleground' states. the media has changed everything. we need a new system. the constitution is outdated.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 1:17 AM. Reason : 234]

9/1/2006 1:16:30 AM

So you think that by electing to diminish Californian votes with respect to everyone else's, in order to encourage a fairer vote overall by hook or crook, Californians are doing us a disservice?

9/1/2006 1:20:32 AM

Just let Congress pick 'em

9/1/2006 1:21:24 AM

Quote :

"electing to diminish Californian votes"

diminish? they are giving their vote to the WINNER.

that insures your vote doesnt do ANYTHING.

it only works if everyone signs on.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 1:31 AM. Reason : 243]

9/1/2006 1:29:48 AM

It insures that Californian votes do less, because others do more. And it works as well as necessary if enough sign on. Get some states to do it and the whole nation will go.

It is a noble gesture for Californians to sacrifice their voting power now so that we might all have equal voting power in the end.

9/1/2006 1:57:38 AM

once again, this legislation doesn't kick in until (unless) enough other states sign on as well. So California is not going out on a limb here.

9/1/2006 2:12:01 AM

Quote :

"the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern."

9/1/2006 3:27:48 AM

Quote :

"It is a noble gesture for Californians to sacrifice their voting power now so that we might all have equal voting power in the end."

He said California and noble gesture in the same sentence, lol

9/1/2006 7:13:32 AM

Quote :

"Localized voter fraud in Alabama or Chicago is much less likely to make a difference in the context of hundreds of millions of legitimate votes counted across the country...It is only in the electoral college system that a couple thousand votes in Florida or Ohio can tip the election in one way or the other."

Really? Well, Gore only won the 2000 popular vote by 543895 votes, or half a million. Therefore, all the south has to do to win the election is create 543895 fraudulent votes for Bush. Some states are not sufficiently Republican controlled to do much, but in some states where the entire state and local aparatus is Republican and idiologically hate democrats then they can create a very impressive political machine. No one in the state has an incentive to prevent the fraud since all it is doing is making the state more relevant to the election.

It will not stop there, either, because once the allegation is made that Alabama is stuffing its ballot box then northern states will feel pressured to do the same. I'm not saying the system will fall apart, I'm just calling it unAmerican. The American electorial system is heavily dependent upon the Judicial system for oversight, oversight that would be impossible in a close election where every county in every state will need to be re-checked to restore legitimacy to the election.

Quote :

"And widespread fraud is just about impossible in the US"

Only because widespread fraud is pointless in an electorial college system, it doesn't effect the outcome no matter how many votes are created/suppressed in Texas. Replace that system with a system that rewards widespread fraud with victory and then get back to me.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 8:27 AM. Reason : .,.]

9/1/2006 8:21:54 AM

^Man do I love reading what he posts.

9/1/2006 9:18:35 AM

if it aint broke

9/1/2006 9:34:59 AM

Quote :

"Here's another thought I'd add to that. Why not also make the size of the pool of electoral votes a state receives dependent on the number of its voters who fucking vote?"

I think that's much more reasonable than the first proposed plan.

I'm going to laugh if, in 2008, the Republicans win a majority, the Democrats had the majority of the Electoral College, but then the Californian bonus puts the Republicans over the top.

9/1/2006 10:04:12 AM

durrrrrr

Quote :

"The California legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes — a minimum of 11 states, depending on population"

9/1/2006 10:05:13 AM

Quote :

"Why not also make the size of the pool of electoral votes a state receives dependent on the number of its voters who fucking vote?"

Um... because if you voted and didn't get state majority, you would be helping out your opponent.

9/1/2006 10:16:44 AM

Quite incorrect. Try putting that part in context, chief.

Part 1:

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Wouldn't it make more sense to divide the electoral votes based on the outcome of the california election?"

Part 2:

Quote :

"Gamecat: Here's another thought I'd add to that. Why not also make the size of the pool of electoral votes a state receives dependent on the number of its voters who fucking vote?"

9/1/2006 10:46:14 AM

Quote :

"I'm going to laugh if, in 2008, the Republicans win a majority, the Democrats had the majority of the Electoral College, but then the Californian bonus puts the Republicans over the top."

i'm pretty sure that greater % of the population lives in blue states. i.e New York, California, Illinois.

That is why the election via popular votes can be so close even though a majority of states vote red.

9/1/2006 12:09:16 PM

Quote :

"i'm pretty sure that greater % of the population lives in blue states. i.e New York, California, Illinois. "

That doesn't sound true. The electorial college seats are apportioned in accordance with population, therefore, if 100% of every state voted one way or the other then the ratio between votes and electorial college points should be equal for every state (within reason). However, because the college is only updated after the census there can be a 10 year delay between population shifts and the re-apportionment of seats in the college.

Therefore, since the population of the north is flat or falling and the population of the south is growing rediculously fast it seems to me that it is the south that is under-represented in the college.

9/1/2006 12:31:05 PM

What are your thoughts on a system in which the number of EC votes a state receives are determined by its population that vote in the current election, and then are apportioned according to the percentage that voted for each candidate?

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 12:52 PM. Reason : on noes!!1 i hadda edit har har]

9/1/2006 12:35:32 PM

So if this happens a Republican could actually carry the shithole of voters called California.

Seriously if they would have done this Bush this past election would have won by a ton in the EC.

9/1/2006 12:42:50 PM

^^^you're forgetting about the two automatic seats that every state gets regardless of population.

9/1/2006 12:48:31 PM

Gamecat, I'm not sure how I feel about it.

I never like encouraging people to vote. If people are too lazy to vote of their own accord, I don't care about their input in the country anyways.

On the other hand, I'm not sure of how the incentives align when you put a program like your talking about into practice. I'd have to consider it in detail before making a real decision on how I felt.

9/1/2006 1:17:46 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: I never like encouraging people to vote. If people are too lazy to vote of their own accord, I don't care about their input in the country anyways."

One of the goals of such a policy would be to make voter apathy the salient issue that it deserves to be. That turnout is considered high when a little over half of American voters participate, something is wrong. I'm not particularly confident that I have any idea what it is, but it deserves the type of attention this would bring.

It's not like my system would make voting compulsory.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/1/2006 1:24:39 PM

I don't have a problem with voter apathy though, Gamecat. To tell you the truth, I rather enjoy it.

If going out and voting is too difficult for you, then I really could care less about your political input. I certainly don't think the government should encourage you to go out and vote. Have you seen the scattered instances of people turning voting into a raffle game where you can win stuff if you cast a vote? That's ridiculous. Someone who won't vote until you bribe them with prizes probably isn't informed enough to vote at all. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to vote even if they aren't informed, I'm just saying I shudder to think that people waste time and effort trying to convince people to vote.

9/1/2006 1:28:16 PM

You're still missing the point.

There's no prize except greater representation for your interests.

9/1/2006 1:29:58 PM

Well, that's what I said in a previous post about needing to really understand the program and how it would change incentives. If it simply meant that your vote would count more than previously, then I'm ok with it.

It really depends on how it is administered and if there are any unintentional consequences.

__
Even though your idea doesn't involve this
I really really really really hate those prize giving things. A distortion of democracy if you ask me

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

9/1/2006 1:35:44 PM

i'd love a popular vote.

i just can't imagine how many recounts there would be.

9/1/2006 1:43:15 PM

^^it would just better reflect the people that actually care. if there's a state of 10 million people where only 1 million people voted and a state of 8 million people where 4 million people voted, the second less populous state would get four times the representation.

there is then a reason for people to get out the vote. i think this would work best with a split of the electoral vote in that distric to reflect distribution of votes in that state.

9/1/2006 1:48:39 PM

^ Probably true

Question: How do other countries elect officials? I mean, are we the only ones on an electoral college, type system? Do they have fraud and recount problems in places where direct democracy is used?

9/1/2006 1:49:56 PM

Most other countries have a parliamentary form of government.

America is alone among the stable democratic countries with a first past the post election system, which we share with Russia and several 3rd world countries (and other exceptions).

In a Parliamentary country election fraud is rewarded but only in the relative, you gain a little more power through fraud. In a first past the post system without the electoral college, election fraud could be the only thing standing between total victory and total defeat (you cannot win half the presidency). With the electoral college it is geographically limited to swing states, such as Florida in 2000.

9/1/2006 1:58:39 PM