Schwarzenegger Veto of National Popular Vote Bill Keeps Californians Untermenschen

Thank heavens Schwartzenegger vetoed AB2948!!

The Electoral College serves a valuable purpose to level the field somewhat between large states and small states. If people want to do away with the Electoral College, they need to do it by amending he Constitution, not by some Rube Goldberg backdoor compact between states.

Additionally, had AB 2948 been in force, this compact would have placed California in the Bush column in 2004! What an utterly preposterous idea! If you read Schwartzenegger's veto message, you will find it was this point that he most objected to, the idea that the votes of the California electorate would in essence be thrown away because some other candidate received more popular votes nationally. Folks, we do not elect presidents by national popular vote, we do it with state by state electoral votes. If you want to change that, then please amend the Constitution.

As for presidential candidates ignoring California, that is a function of the blue-statedness of California, not the Electoral College. If prevailing sentiments in California were more evenly divided in presidential elections, as is sometimes the case, candidates would flock here in droves. But far more importantly, if this compact were to become effective, presidential candidates would absolutely ignore the smaller states, which is precisely what the founders intended to prevent when they set up the Electoral College.

Why would any Californian veto a bill so that the weight of the vote of a California would remain one quarter of that of a citizen of Wyoming?

Why would any American veto a bill that would render all Americans equal in the weight of their votes for the Chief Magistrate?

Why would anyone veto a bill that provides that the person exercising the power of life and death over the person and the planet occupies that power "with the consent of the governed?"

The Article has it right. The Electoral College is a relic of the Holy Roman Empire. It was the means by which the aristocracy imposed an Emperor upon the people. It is not a device of a republic at all. It is not "American" at all.

The Electoral College was part of the political and economic subsidy to slavery written into the Slaveholder's Constitution of 1787. It violates all the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Civil War Amendments.

"...presidential candidates would absolutely ignore the smaller states, which is precisely what the founders intended to prevent when they set up the Electoral College."

That is quite simply factually incorrect. The Electoral College arose during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 as a compromise between various factions who could not agree on whether to elect the president by direct popular vote or to have Congress elect the president. It was a compromise almost no one at the convention was pleased with, but it allowed Article II to be ratified as it gave each of the factions at least something. Furthermore, the idea was NEVER to have the electors chosen by popular vote in each state. This did not become a widespread practice until 1824, almost 4 decades after the Framers crafted the constitution. So the suggestion that many arguing against this proposal have made that the Electoral College was some ingenious device crafted by the Founders to enshrine federalist principles is just flat-out wrong on history.

I happy to see that Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed this bill. In effect it would negate the votes of Californians. California generally votes Democratic. If the nation-wide popular vote was Democratic results in the Electoral College would be the same. However, if the national popular vote was Republican all 55 of California's electoral votes would be given to a candidate whom the majority of Californians had not voted for. How does that make the electoral process more democratic?

"In 2004, George W. Bush won the popular vote by less than three percent. In 2000, Al Gore's margin of victory was half a percent. Yet, in both elections, President Bush won in 31 states, and his Democratic opponent won in only 19 states plus the District of Columbia."

This example illustrates my point. In 2000 Al Gore received a majority of the popular vote. The majority of Californians also voted for him and he recieved California's electoral votes. However, if the proposed law had been in effect in 2004 Bush would have won 32 states. In 2004 Bush received a majority of the popular vote. A slim majority, it's true, but a majority nonetheless. That majority would have sufficed to give all 55 of California's votes to President Bush, despite the fact that a majority of Californians voted for John Kerry in that election.

Also just as a side note, I don't see how snide references to Schwarzenegger's movies has any relationship to the merits of the bill in question.

A wrong move -
If passed by states with 270 votes, candidates would campaign in CA, since more votes in the state might would make it easier to reach a national popular vote majority and CA votes would really count.

Now if the State looks 55% democratic no candidate will expend energy and $ to seek votes in CA. If passed and effective CA votes would count for the first time in a long time.

I'm not exactly a huge fan of the Electoral College, but the charge directed at Governor Schwarzenegger for putting the interests of his party before his state makes no sense. This bill would liberate millions of Republican California voters.

Whether or not the Electoral College was designed to be a manifestation of federalism is beside the point, because that's exactly what it has become. No state officer has the duty to appease the cries of "One man, One Vote" if he doesn't believe it is in the best interest of his state to do so.

im GLAD he veto'd this bill. the bill instead of making the electoral college vote for the popular candidate in THEIR STATE makes them vote for the popular candidate of THE OTHER STATES. this makes their states votes mean nothing.

less people would vote which wouldnt be good when theres already issues with people not voting. in an extreme example say all but 10 states take up the NPV method. That would mean that the candidates would only need to campaign in those 10 states becuase they are the only ones that matter. If they win in those 10, then the rest automatically vote for them

this is a BAD idea for this country. instead of a NATIONAL popular vote, they should be making it to where the electoral college has to vote for their states popular vote.

This is nuts. Gore did not win the national popular vote - there WAS no national popular vote. If there were, the candidates would have campaigned for it, and who knows who would have won it. Instead, there was an election under an electoral college system, and Gore got more popular votes. To make any point about total votes is like claiming that the World Series is unfair if the team with the most runs over the series doesn't win.

Your position is essentially unAmerican. As you say, it might well be in California's interest (assuming California HAS an interest distinguishable from Oregon, Nevada or Arizona) to do away with the Electoral College, but that's why we HAVE an Electoral College. We have it because we are a continental polity, and the popular election of the President is a bad idea for that sort of place.

From your silly claim that it matters who got the most popular votes in an election in which the popular vote does not matter, I can only assume that you don't go in much for dynamic analysis. Changing the rules of the presidential game would change our politics in ways that cannot be predicted, but the word ochlocracy comes to mind. Despots and populist monsters like Hitler come to power through plebiscites. They intimidate or fool the dumbest 51% of the people in the country into voting for them, and they take power. That doesn't happen here precisely because it can't - because 51% of the popular vote won't get it done. You have to get people in varying states with varying interests. You can't just round up the disaffected, the racist, and the stupid and build a majority. Under the compact, that strategy would become disastrously atractive, or at least it might, and that's reason enough to be very afraid of it.

Nathan,

> Schwarzenegger Veto of National Popular Vote Bill
> Keeps Californians Untermenschen
> Thomas Gangale

[ http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2006/10/schwarzenegger_27.html ]

The path to a national popular vote for US president is only 1 of 3
questions that I would ask you to think about:

1. What are the consequences of the US government downweighting
the 21 most populous states so much in the selection of the US
president that these states' effective loss of population, 64
million people, is greater than the entire population of the rest of
the country, which is only 63 million people? [1]

2. What are the consequences of the US government downweighting the 16
most populous states so much in the US senate that these states' 68%
of the US population only gets 32% of the senate vote? [1]

3. What are the consequences of the US government downweighting the 37
most populous states so much in the US constitutional amendment
process that these states' 95.5% of the population can be blocked by
a plurality of the remaining 4.5% of the population? [1]

And if these consequences are on balance bad, is there any realistic
approach to a work-around? [1]

I look forward to hearing what you think!

Best regards,

Gary Kuhn, Ph.D.

St Martin Systems, Inc.
96 Leigh Avenue
Princeton, NJ 08542-3147
tel: 609 924 6361

[1] www.stmartinsystems.com/070831_US_CofC_education_report_card.htm
www.stmartinsystems.com/070831_US_CofC_education_report_card.pdf

The real reason that three Republican governors have vetoed the National Popular Vote bill is that Republicans tend to do better when voter turnout is low. - Making every vote equal would give the people in non-competitive spectator states a reason to vote.

The current electoral college system actually disenfranchises small states MORE than large states. Take a state like Wyoming. Bush won this state by 69% in the last election. There is absolutely NO reason for either Obama or McCain to campaign there -- Unless McCain pledges allegiance to the devil while eating live puppies and kittens on live tv he will win this state. Sure, California, New York and Texas are also ignored by the candidates, but they cannot be completely ignored (candidates need the money and influence). The only states that benefit from the system are a few "battleground" states, usually (depending on the election) around 4 or 5.

The current system says: If you live in a state that either reliably leans Democratic or Republican, you can safely be IGNORED. If you live in a battleground state, we will pay attention to you.

Post a comment

Commenters: You must preview your comment before posting. And please only hit "Post" once; it may take a while, but your comment is being processed. Thanks.