http://nationalpopularvote.com/

"I say, make 'em campaign everywhere. I want to see all the attack ads too."

I'm not disagreeing with your premise, Kevin, just wondering. Would electing by national, popular vote result in more widespread campaigning? Maybe I'm dense, but this isn't obvious to me. I can see that it would shift campaigning to bigger population centers - and especially those that aren't politically homogenous - and that may be a good thing. Any papers on this?

Good point, Kevin, though I'll take issue with the idea of California Democrats being forced to "waste time and energy" -- because waste is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, those resources could be used for other more obviously/directly Democratic/liberal efforts/goals, but (1) this *must* be smacked down, and (2) it's a chance for Democrats to remind people what kind of sneaky crooked bastards Republicans become when there's a chance to fight for electoral power (which, I should add, means pretty much *always*, because *they* realize there's *always* a chance to fight for electoral power, unlike *some* parties).

Of course, having said *that*, I'm still not entirely convinced that California Democrats will figure this out and maximize the opportunities it presents, because some Democrats still don't seem to understand some fundamental aspects of political fighting.

Why don't the popular vote measures being passed violate Section 2 of the 14th Amendment?

It would seem to me that if electoral votes are apportioned in a way that is relatively divorced from the state's vote totals, then the men of the state are not being permitted to vote for a candidate for president and the state would have its electoral votes reduced accordingly.

I should mention that I am in favor of electing presidents via direct popular vote.

Then why are you against this initiative? This new electoral system proposed by conservatives is the closest thing you can get to a direct vote under the electoral college system. If you really do support direct popular vote, you should support the initiative and not be against it.

This is incremental reform so that we can further the noble goal of a popularly elected presidency. It's hypocritical for you to be against it just because it might adversely affect liberals and democrats. Democracy is not just for liberals. It's for everyone. Too bad liberals like yourself don't understand it.

I like the idea of electoral votes going by congressional district, with each state's two remaining electoral votes going to the person with the most votes in that state. However, it would have to take place on a national basis, in all 50 states. California's system shouldn't be different from that of North Dakota or West Virginia.

I can hardly wait for the President to be elected by popular vote, because I think the easiest way to solve the problem with global warming is to have hell freeze over.

Al, would you be singing the same tune if this plan was being considered in Texas? Like Vincent said, this plan would only be fair and equitable if every state implemented it at once. I also support election by popular vote, and I see the electoral college system as broken, but implementing this type of plan in only one or two states, especially large states, would make it even brokener.

Nothing is likely to change, but why would direct popular vote be better? Is there any inherent benefit to making candidates campaign all over? It seems like it actually would redirect campaigns from swing states to large metropolitan areas, and exclude more sparsely populated areas, which does not really sound like a good thing.

The current system has worked reasonably well for over 200 years. Changing it would alter the basic structure agreed to in the constitution for no real compelling reason. There is nothing wrong with people trying to amend the constitution. I have a bit of a problem with the state initiatives because it effectively allows one group of states to change the constitution for other states that do not agree.

Count me as not convinced that the best way to select a president is by straight popular vote (despite the fact that such a process would have prevented our current nightmare).

With the popular vote as the decider, you could easily end up with bad results like a presidential election being decided because of bad weather in some region, a power outage, etc. In addition, since turnout would decide everything, the system would be very vulnerable to manipulation.

Better would be to assign votes based upon the total population of each state (or smaller region), with each candidate receiving their total based upon their % of the votes cast in that state.

It seems like it actually would redirect campaigns from swing states to large metropolitan areas, and exclude more sparsely populated areas, which does not really sound like a good thing.

Really? What's so bad about it? Why do people who live in sparse areas deserve some sort of special compensation?

Actually, if it were up to me I'd be glad to bypass ALL campaign advertising. None of it is the least bit useful in making a rational choice between candidates, and in these days of negative campaigning it's a spew of poorly produced smears and appeals to emotion and stupidity. Compounding the injury, candidates have to sell themselves out completely to moneyed interests in order to finance this vicious onslaught. Yuck.

Chris Green has an interesting idea, but any state could decide to do that already. I think the bottom line is that the current system is the deal that was agreed to by the states and, if people want to change it nationwide, they should go through the constitutional amendment process.

The Californis initiative is entertaining, but Californians ought to be able to decide whether they want it. It was proposed for partisan reasons and presumably it will be defeated for partisan reasons.

Kevin,

Thanks for the thread - But, in addition to wasting time and effort, they will have to "waste" a lot of money for ad campaigns to defeat this measure. This is money that could be used elsewhere to defeat the Repugs.

One thing that always seems to be left out of the discussion of why we don't elect presidents via direct popular vote is why the founding fathers chose not to do so in the first place. There are at least two good reasons I can think of.

The obvious one is that they saw the nation they were creating as a collection of states, not a collection of people. Their identification with their home state was much stronger than ours is today. And maybe you could cite that as one reason the old way needs to go by the boards.

But the other big reason is that these guys knew human nature. And they just sorta assumed that as soon as someone puts out a ballot box, someone else is figuring out how to stuff it. They knew they couldn't validate every single vote and didn't think the country would survive the rancorous atmosphere a disputed popular election would create. So they devised a system which minimized the damage a cheater could do by letting each state be responsible for its own elections... fight it out among yourselves, just tell us who won. If someone slips in an extra 5,000 votes for their candidate in Vermont, that's Vermont's problem. And if you are going to win your state anyway, the electoral system takes away any incentive for the party in power to fire up the old Diebolds and jack up their totals.

If we go to a popular vote, the incentive for fraud increases exponentially. If you thought the Florida recount of 2000 was controversial, wait until you start challenging results from across the country. A popular vote is an attractive idea today. I'm sure it was back then as well.

To those who think that electing by Congressional District is a good idea - think.

This is a dumb idea. Unless you are a Republican, this will have the pernicious effect of further diluting the voting power of those who live in large states - people whose votes already count less than the 347 people who live in Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota combined (for the dense, yes, that figure is a joke to emphasize the point).

Let's do some math (stop groaning, it isn't hard):

Assume only 4 states.

1. 9 electoral votes - 70% of total population
2. 3 electoral votes - 10% of total population
3. 3 electoral votes - 10% of total population
4. 3 electoral votes - 10% of total population

The winner of each state gets 70% of the total vote and the winner in state 1 is different from the winner of the rest of the states. 70% of 70% is 49% and 30% of 10% is 3%. So the popular vote winner gets 49+3+3+3 or 58% of the vote. But because idiots decided to go with a congressional system the winner of 58% of the vote gets as little as 6 of 18 electoral votes.

Under the old system we have a tie (9 to 9). Under the new moronic system the winner of the electoral vote by a rather significant margin (12 to 6) is the guy who only 38% of our tiny nation wanted.

The electoral system, with it's tie for a 16 point defeat, is hardly better.

One person one vote should be the law of the land. Giving votes to land makes no sense.

Fine and dandy. I'm all for it.

But I'm not for pre-emptively disarming BLUE STATES first.

Get rid of the electoral college in Texas and maybe another medium-sized red-state at the same time as California - or all of the states.

Let me tell you once more how the French conduct their elections, using the 2007 as an example. We should be so lucky.

March 20, 2007. The official slate of candidates is announced by the Constitutional Council. The slate in 2007 included twelve candidates from parties ranging from the Communists to the Greens. (To be nominated, candidates must obtain signatures from 500 elected officials from 30 different departments of France. The French expect their presidential candidates to have demonstrated competence in adminstration and policy.) The campaign starts.

Sunday, April 22, 2007. A first round of voting is conducted. Since no candidate got a majority, the two top candidates--Sergolene Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy--go on to a second round of voting.

Sunday, May 6, 2007. The second round of voting is conducted. Nicolas Sarkozy wins 53% of the vote.

Sunday, June 10 & Sunday June 17, first and second round voting for seats the National Assembly

Approximately 85% of the French voted in these elections, It is truly direct representation, and as far as I can see, people feel that their voice was heard (though the left was seriously not happy when Sarkozy won.) Advertising is regulated to prevent slanders and deceit, and candidates are given equal time in broadcasting and speeches. (Money plays less of a role and Swiftboat attacks would be prosecuted.) The ballots leave a clear paper trail. And the winners are announced at 8:00PM, when the polls close. (No all night media circus.) And because the selection of candidates occurs so quickly, you aren't forced to vote for candidates who seemed right when they locked the nomination in January but don't seem so right in November.

And please note the timeline. March 20 to May 6, six weeks. That's all. Efficient, timely, fair, representative. What is not to like?

The French have a better healthcare system, better bridges and better elections. No wonder conservatives hate them.

Um...the 38% is apparently an editing mistake :-(

42% of the mythical population wanted candidate B. Not much difference, but embarrassing in a post saying math isn't hard :-)

The fact stands, a 16 point loss should not mean victory - and if you think the example is far fetched, look at how badly diluted NY and CA would be under this attempt to give Republicans a way to win without having to actually convince a majority of the voters to vote for their incompetence.

brian, everyoen's favorite faux-reasonable GOP shill concern troll, wrote: The current system has worked reasonably well for over 200 years.

I'll see your "reasonably well" and raise you the 2000 election, jackass.

brian's concern trollery, of course, reveals the Republican fear of making the current system, which gives undue weight to sparsely populated Western Red states like Idaho, with a more (small-D) democratic one: They know it'll become a large-D Democratic one.

It's amazing, by the way, that after his pathetic performance in this thread">, brian posts here as if he has any credibility, as if anyone imagines he isn't a GOP shill, and as if anyone really gives a damn what his dishonest partisan hackery is.

By the way, brian, you ignorant jackass: I have a bit of a problem with the state initiatives because it effectively allows one group of states to change the constitution for other states that do not agree.

The Constitution guarantees that states an choose how they assign electors (emphasis added):

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

jeff,

I'm not sure why fraud should be a worse under direct popular elections. In our current system, when the election is close, it is possible to win by switching a few thousand votes in a small number of precincts. But to win the popular vote, it would be necessary to switch a few million votes. Any successful fraud would have to be a widespread conspiracy, and my gut feeling is that it would be easier to detect such a conspiracy.

it's skulduggery, btw, not skullduggery

I don't favor this because I think a 2000-style election is all that likely to happen again in the near future, but because I'm tired of presidential campaigns that essentially take place in only a dozen states or so.

A national popular vote won't change that. It'll just change the calculus of which small segment of the population is targetted. Instead of swing states, you'll see media markets where a decisive swing is most attainable being heavily targetted, and most of the rest of the country taken for granted.

Short of weakening the duopoly with preference voting everywhere in federal elections, and multiple winner elections in, at least, the House of Representatives (there are some interesting ways you could make the Presidency and Vice Presidency into an ordered-result two-winner election rather than a two-seat linked election that it is now, too) you aren't going to change the fact that the parties are going to focus where the chance of a decisive swing is most significant, and take most of the rest of the country for granted.

Campaining does happen everywhere. If all you want to do is vote, then that is all the involvement you get. There are always opportunities to GOTV, phone bank, door to door and get involved in retail politics at your local level.

cmdicely says:

A national popular vote won't change that. It'll just change the calculus of which small segment of the population is targetted. Instead of swing states, you'll see media markets where a decisive swing is most attainable being heavily targetted, and most of the rest of the country taken for granted.

But at least it'll be the number of people that can potentially be swung that would count, and not whether they were in a state that had close to a 50-50 split.

In 2004, Kerry lost Texas by about 61%-38%. Bush lost NY by about 58%-41%.

Supposing a Dem candidate could get another 6-7% of the vote in Texas, but was still unlikely to win. Or a GOP candidate being able to do the same in NY. IMHO, picking up those votes should count the same whether or not it propels the candidate over the 50% mark in that particular state. Crazy idea, I know.

Sure, large swaths of rural America won't see a candidate. That's because there aren't many people there. That's life. It's just the same as candidates who aren't going to cater to the Albanian vote because there aren't many Albanian-Americans.

And maybe some heavily populated areas won't see candidates because few people there are likely to change their minds. In that case, why would they need to see a candidate?

Let's do the popular vote compact, and free candidates to go after the persuadables, wherever they are. If we can pick up 100,000 votes in Texas, that ought to be worth the same as picking up 100,000 votes in New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa. The latter would win us the next election; the former wouldn't do shit. That just seems wrong to me.

Here we go again:

"Math Against Tyranny

When you cast your vote this month, you're not directly electing the president--you're electing members of the electoral college. They elect the president. An archaic, unnecessary system? Mathematics shows, says one concerned American, that by giving your vote to another, you're ensuring the future of our democracy.
by Will Hively"

http://discovermagazine.com/1996/nov/mathagainsttyran914

jeff on August 30, 2007 at 12:38
why the founding fathers chose not to do so in the first place

These are the same founding fathers who:
a) thought that a slave who can't vote should count as 2/3 of a man for representational purpses
b) thought women shouldn't vote at all

So let's cut the worship of the founding fathers.

If they hadn't fought the British, we'd still be groaning under the oppression of the British crown and have no freedom at all, like those poor bastards in Canada.

We should let the U.S. Supreme Court justices decide for us. Just look at how well everything worked out since the last time they did.

This initiative is easily defused. (1) Get the legislature to put a similar provision on the ballot, but with a rider that it doesn't go into effect until X number of large states pass similar bills (2) Accuse the GOP of wanting to unilaterally disarm California's vote. If the proposition with the rider gets more votes than the GOP's proposal (which it will), then it takes precedure over the GOP's.

Since it's relatively easy to get any hair-brained proposal on California's ballots, why not submit a proposal outlawing republicans from being elected altogether ... or at least outlawing them from receiving ANY electoral votes - EVER. Then they'd have to spend THEIR $$$ to fight it too. Any Californians want to start this drive?

If [the founding fathers] hadn't fought the British, we'd still be groaning under the oppression of the British crown and have no freedom at all, like those poor bastards in Canada.

Beautiful.

Ah, to suffer under listening to a USARadio2, the way the Canadians have to suffer under a CBCRadio2. Those poor bastards.

I believe many trolls suffer under skull drudgery - Thinking is soooo difficult for them.

"the GOP initiative is almost certain to fail if Democrats and liberal interest groups mount the kind of campaign they usually do against partisan initiatives like this."

How I wish you were right, Kevin, but my experience tells me that voters in general do not really understand, or care, what this would mean.

"It's a fairer method," they'll say, and they'll vote for it not realizing its intent and its effect will probably be to keep the White House in Republican't hands.

The only Democratic strategy that might have a chance of succeeding would be, I think, to have a competing measure on the ballot that could get more votes. I suggest something along the lines of a preventing this scheme from taking effect until enough other states have changed their allocation methods accordingly so that California' reallocation would result in a majority of electoral votes being so allocated.

Or even better, until a majority of electoral votes are ALREADY so allocated.

Or what about, 'when Texas does the same thing.'

Or when Florida, Texas and Ohio do the same thing.

"It seems like it actually would redirect campaigns from swing states to large metropolitan areas, and exclude more sparsely populated areas."

You mean large metropolitan areas, where most of the people really live? It seems that's where they SHOULD be campaigning.

And this would compensate at least to some extent for the fact that small, rural places pick the nominees.

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,"

Oooh, Gregory points out that this initiative might not even be Constitutional. The LEGISLATURE has total say over how the electoral votes are allocated, not "the people."

Of course a Republcan't Supreme Court could probably find a way to shoe-horn the Legislature out of the picture.