You have my sympathies. And I don’t mean about the “Democrat” part. 
I think that system would be the best, except I might go with 2 EVs going to the overall winner (those 2 being equal to the Senate EVs), and then the rest being split proportionately.
I’m not sure I think other states would follow suit, but then I don’t see it happening in th CA in the first place. And I think you mean Maine, not Vermont.
Eliminating the Electoral College, in the name of democracy, is long overdue.
Eliminating it only in California is a move against democracy, or should I say Democrats.
Supporting this proposition is the height of political cynicism.
Agreed completely.
You’re right. Funny enough, I ALWAYS put Vermont, even though I know damn well that’s not how it is. I wrote an 8 page essay on a Poli Sci final about it and about half of the time I put Vermont. The teacher, who had watched me regularly mix up the two the entire quarter, just crossed it out and put a little smiley face heh.
Yeah, I’m an airhead. I blame the Bakersfield air for destroying my brain cells. 
It bothers me when a party (any party) puts its own interest in staying in power above a reform that would reduce an unfair grip on that power.
How would “reforming” the electoral college by assigning EV’s on congressional district enhance democracy at all? Have you seen how gerrymandered CA district boundaries are? Californian voters will still have little to vote for, as each district is going to trend heavy Republican or heavy Democrat.
In CA’s 2004 elections, 153 legislative seats were up: 80 State Assembly, 53 Federal House, 20 State Senate. How many seats switched parties? Zero. Not one district changed hands! Two years later, with the massive voter shift to the Democrats (across the country), one out of 153 seats changed parties, as Rep. Pombo lost his bid for re-election. That’s 306 races based in electoral districts, and one party change.
As Hendrik Hertzberg said in last week’s New Yorker:
The only reform that enhances the democratic values of the General Presidential Election is one that abolishes the Electoral College or makes that institution moot. Only the popular vote deciding who becomes our nations’s chief executive, and the entire country participating in the election on equal terms, can be the result of any reform.
Pleonast, I now see your post was directed at the Democrat’s campaigning against redistricting reform in the Governor’s special election, not the Democrat’s campaigning against this EC “reform” proposal. My mistake. The bulk of my post still stands though.
Maybe if Texas agreed to do the same, I’d go along with it. But California doing this unilaterally is just a giveaway to the Republicans. It may be more fair than the current system (though not as fair as abolishing the Electoral College entirely), but to be brutally honest my partisanship won’t permit me to support this proposal.
You, too? If I had only proposed a monthly Prom I’d be in Congress by now. But, no, I had to be in the “WTF Happened at Kent State?!?!?” party.
Piker, I agree with completely about the non-competitiveness of California districts (and is why basing the EC votes on districts is bad), which is why I complained about the California Democratic party actively working against redistricting reform.
I disagree that effectively removing the EC is the only way to improve the democraticness of the Presidential election. I made a post in a parallel thread with suggestions.
I don’t have a cite, but I remember hearing that under this proposal, Bush’s victory in 2000 would have been a little larger. On the lines of 285-255 instead of the 271-267 it turned out to be…
But then, if the rules had been different, the strategies and tactics of both campaigns would have been different, areas focused on for visits and TV buys would have been different, even the issues discussed would have been different.
I’m all in favor of applying the Maine-Nebraska rule nationally, since it gets around the problem of the political feasibility of an Amendment, and gets at least most of the way to an equitable system.
but of course it has to be done all at once - I’m not in favor of anybody unilaterally disarming, as the California measure would. Perhaps if TX, FL, OH, PA, and NY would do it at the same time?
Absolutely. And that is why claims that “Gore won the popular vote” mean nothing. If the winner of the national popular vote won the presidency, then the tactics on each side would have been different.
Your proposal that all of these large states change the rules wouldn’t work either. In each election, FL, PA, and OH would probably be so close as to only give the winner a one or two EV difference. The candidates would be better off in a small swing state like WV to get FIVE EVs instead. Could you imagine a scenario where the major candidates ignore FL, PA, and OH in favor of West Virginia? It would happen under your proposal…
They are represented in exact proportions to their population. The cities have more sway becuase they have more people, you know, like in a democracy.
This is akin to those ridiculous maps that were bandied about after the 2004 election, showing all the “red” counties across the country as though that meant something.
Since when is “one acre, one vote” supposed to enter into it?
Since 1787. The idea that a national legislature (Senate) or the president should be elected by a national popular vote was rejected by small states then and opposed by them now. There would not be a United States of America today had the large states tried to force their will on the small states. It was a compromise that was agreed to, and we expect it to be followed! 
Do you have a cite for the number of swing vs. lock districts by state that would support that claim?
Also, you suggest that the big states would be ignored, without mentioning the number of Congressional districts that can be reached by media buys and personal appearances in the largest cities compared to those in the smallest ones.
Yes, I’m fully aware of the outsized influence of the smallest states in a nationalized split-vote system, but it would still be less than we have now. IMHO the main reason to support it instead of other equitability-restoring reforms, again, is its political feasibility. Politics is the art of the possible. This is politically possible. Eliminating the EC, or anything else more profound, is not.
I’m going to float an idea I’ve mentioned several times on this board. It came to me after the recall election, when everybody and their brother turned out because there were so many candidates on the ballot. Not that it would have any more chance of passing than the proposal at hand, but…
California should elect a quarter of its electors every year, directly by name, to a four year term. For instance, in the near future, when California has 56 votes in the EC, it would elect 14 of them in, say, 2009 to serve until 2013, 14 in 2010 to serve until 2014, 14 for 2011-2015, and 14 in 2012, the actual presidential election year. It would be like the recall election every year, with maximal turnout. The ballot will have a list of names with the note: Vote for no more than 14. It would become a symbolic referendum on whatever the current administration had been up to. Sitting presidents seeking re-election and politicians of every stripe would be paying attention to California every year as they try to “stack the deck” with electors favorable to them. This would be change from the past 7 years, a period when Washington has ignored the nation’s most populous state.
On the congressionally mandated date for elector selection every four years, the California legislature would look over the list of elected Electors, make sure no one has died or is otherwise unable to carry out the duties of their office, in which case someone gets appointed to fill the seats, and confirm the list for that election cycle.
The duties of the electors will be to show up in whatever space in Sacramento is designated Electoral Hall, deliberate for however long or little they deem fit up until the date they must communicate their selections to congress, and cast their votes for President and Vice President. They are paid for their duties served, but otherwise the job’s a sinecure. And here’s the trick, see. You televise their proceedings. That brings the celebrities to the campaign that bring the voters to the polls. Hollywood has always felt compelled to comment on Washington, and Washington has always felt moved to respond. The only difference would be that now it would actually matter because some of Hollywood is actually going to help select the President.
How do we keep it from bankrupting the state with extra elections? Simple. Make that the only state-funded election each year. No more special elections, no more state funding of party primaries. The Tuesday after the first Monday in November is the day you go vote for Electors, Senators, Representatives, State Officials, Mayors and Ballot Initiatives, whatever’s on the ballot that year. Period.
So, would the electors be pledged to a candidate? To a party? Or just vote for them as individuals?
Let’s say, Hillary wins in 2008, so I vote for an elector who pledges to vote for Gingrich in 2012. What if Newt keels over with a heart attack two days later? What if the elector I voted for dies? What if Hillary dies and her VP takes over and I like him/her better than Newt?
I think the idea is novel, but what I think in 2009 may be radically different in 2012. Let’s say that idea was law in Florida from 2005 to the present. Mark Foley would be an elector for sure. Could he be impeached? By whom? For what crime? Remember he hasn’t even been charged with a crime.
It’s a cool idea, but has many side effects. Why should my vote for an elector stand three years later when I have new and better information on which to base my vote?
You vote for the individual, who may campaign that they will vote for a particular individual, a particular party, or as a sober impartial.
Let’s say in 2009, you vote for a pro-Gingrich candidate. Obviously, if Gingrich croaks, that Elector will have to cast a vote for someone else.
If, by 2012, you’ve changed your mind, you vote for some other electors. Remember, you get to vote for 14 each time. Live it up! Vote the wishy-washy slate if you feel like it.
The Constitution simply states that Electors for each state shall be appointed “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”. Such direction could stipulate under what circumstances a person may serve as an Elector. The Constitution only stipulates that it can not be a sitting U.S. Government official.
For the same reason that your Senator still holds office even though you don’t like them five years later. The selection of the President, like the Senate should be immune to fluctuations other than a profound sea change in popular opinion, which was one of the reasons for an Electoral College in the first place. Sure, you don’t like what one of your old electors stand for. Vote for new ones this time around who reflect your current views, and will cast their votes accordingly.
So Wikipedia lists about 75 people who have declared or may declare for the Presidency next year. Each of them, presumably, would secure 14 electors to vote for them, just in case. This is over 1000 electors on the ballot. Additionally, you presume that there will be some undeclared electors, who could cast their vote for anyone.
The recall election had 135 candidates. You’re proposing a system that would annually have elections with nearly 10 times that number.
Additionally, let me give a simplified analogy to show another flaw.
Assume in a given year, that the state is voting for one elector. 3 people make the ballot, 2 pledging to vote for Candidate A, 1 for Candidate B.
34% of the electorate votes for the elector pledged to Candidate B, the remaining electorate splits between the other two evenly, so each getting 33% of the vote.
Candidate A is clearly preferred by 66% of the population, but the state casts the electoral vote for Candidate B. Seems to me a very bad idea.
This would be the case if we kept the current standard system of each candidate having a complete slate of more or less anonymous electors that the voters are actually electing to the office of Elector, when they think they are voting for the President.
I’m talking about having people run individually for the office of Elector of the President for the State of California. “Vote Morton Lamprey for California Elector!” So if 150 people run for the office, the top 14 vote-getters win each year.
Could happen, but if a minimal Electoral Vote state (you can’t have less than three) were to follow my system, they’d elect one Elector per year, skipping the year of that state’s choice. If two candidates for Elector both plan to vote for the same presidential candidate, I would assume they would coordinate to run for separate seats in separate years, in order to maximize that candidate’s potential rather than only have one out of three seats.
If a candidate’s campaign machine lacks the coordination to figure that one out, that person probably doesn’ t belong in the election anyway.