Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

Our latest headlines

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Books

Dividing California's Electoral Votes by Congressional Districts Would Increase the Chance of Electing a President Who Lost the Popular Vote

By Dr. John R. KozaCo-author of Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote

The ballot measure to divide California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts. If the district approach were unilaterally impose on an isolated large state such as California, it would greatly increase the chance that the White House would go to a candidate who did not win the most popular votes nationwide.

The district approach would not, as claimed, make California relevant in presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to campaign in districts (or states) where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Currently, candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their money and visits on just six closely divided “battleground” states, and 99% of their expenditures in just 16 states. Thus, two thirds of the states are ignored in presidential elections.

The district approach would be even worse. In California, the presidential race is a foregone conclusion in 50 of the state’s 53 congressional districts. Thus, candidates would have no more incentive than they do now to pay attention to most of California. If the district approach were used nationally, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that would be competitive in presidential elections, so seven-eighths of the county would be left out of presidential elections. This is even worse than the current system, where two-thirds of the states are irrelevant.

A national popular vote is the way to guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President. It is the way to make every person’s vote equally important to presidential campaigns, regardless of where that person lives.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the White House to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states having 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Thus, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the White House to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has 320 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. Since its introduction in February 2006, the bill has passed by 11 legislative houses (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).

See www.NationalPopularVote.com

Dr. John R. Koza, a California resident who has testified before the state legislature on the Electoral College, is co-author of the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote and originator of the proposed “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.” Email: koza@NationalPopularVote.com

Posted on September 10, 2007

Comments

Ignorancce is bliss, I suppose. But Mr. Koza, you aren't ignorant, so I can't help but speculate there is some other agenda behind your passion. You know that we aren't a democracy, but rather a democratic republic. You also know that the difference isn't merely semantic. You also must know that the framers of the constitution instituted the Electoral College on purpose. You know that population tends to congregate into particular areas geographically. You also know that people in the same geographic area would tend to benefit from the federal govenrment taking particular stances. Certainly, you're aware that in a republic, the federal power must somehow be kept in check -- and separate from -- state power. The Electoral College was (and IS) a way to balance this power, so that heavily populated "city states" could not simply override the wishes of the "rural states" under the supposed virtue of "equal vote". The main problem is California. The founding fathers would NEVER have allowed a state that large to enter the Union. And so a disproportionate amount of electoral votes sits in one geographic area of the country, and many voters in that state feel disenfranchised by the fact that their vote, their whole district, and perhaps their whole county means NOTHING. I believe a better answer is the opposite of your approach. EVERY state should adopt a "proportional distribution" approach, and then I guarantee that a)voter turnout would be at all-time highs (your candidate will get a proportional total of your vote, so you will bother to show up), b)our republic maintains the balance between state and federal power. In most cases, the popular vote winner will still end up the winner of the Presidency and when this does not occur, then at least state interest is still being preserved.

Posted by: Former Disenfranchised California Voter at September 27, 2007 03:50 PM

"Ignorance is bliss"? Comment forms sure are a great way for contemptuous blowhards to spray graffiti over other people's work, aren't they. There has been no "balance" between state and federal power since the Civil War, that fight is long long over, and even if state-by-state autonomy were on the table the Electoral College is a stupid and ineffective way to make it happen. Even if most people agreed this silly distinction between a "republic" and a "democracy" is important (they don't) and that "one person one vote" is "bad" (definitely not), the Electoral College does not correct the issue in any rational way. Giving Wyoming and Nebraska more influence for their large territories would be fine, but that doesn't explain Rhode Island or Delaware, does it. "city states" if there ever were any. John Koza's article makes sense, "California Voter's rebuttal" does not.

Posted by: former californian number two at October 31, 2008 11:44 AM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker