- HOME
- About
- Topics
- Angelides
- Arnold Schwarzenegger
- California Attorney General Race
- California Congressional Races
- California Democratic Party
- California Governor Race 2010
- California Legislative Races
- California Lt. Governor Race
- California Secretary of State Race
- California State Budget
- California State Controller
- Campaign Finance Reform
- Campaigns
- Cell Phones
- Children and Families
- Consumer Rights
- Corporate Accountability
- Criminal Justice
- Death With Dignity
- Disaster Preparation
- Discrimination and Civil Rights
- Education
- Elections and Voting
- Electoral College
- Energy
- Environment
- Farm Animal Cruelty Ballot Measure
- Flood Control
- Food Safety
- Gas Prices
- Governor's Election Race
- Gun control
- Health Care
- Health Insurance
- Hiram Johnson's Corner
- Housing
- Human Rights
- Humor
- Immigration
- Infrastructure
- Initiative Reform
- Insurance Commissioner Race
- Labor
- Language and Politics
- Legal System
- Media and Communication
- Minimum Wage
- Open Government
- Pharmaceutical Companies
- Politics
- Preschool
- Presidential Election 2008
- Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act Prop
- Prison Reform
- Privacy
- Privitization
- Prop 11-Redistricting/Reapportionment
- Prop 1A--High Speed Rail
- Prop 2--Treatment of Farm Animals
- Prop 3-Children's Hospital Bonds
- Prop 4 Waiting Period and Parental Notification
- Prop 5--Non-violent drug offenses
- Prop 7 and 10-Alternative Fuel and Energy Bond
- Prop 8 and-Marriage Equality
- Prop 85 Parental Notification
- Prop 86 Tobacco Tax
- Prop 87--Alternative Energy
- Prop 9 Parole
- Prop 90
- Prop 91--Transportation Funding
- Prop 92- Community Colleges
- Prop 93--Term Limits
- Props 94-97--Tribal Gaming
- Props 98 and 99
- Racial Disparities
- Responsible Lending
- Retirement Benefits
- Site of the Day
- Solar Initiative
- Structure of California Government
- Taxes
- Toxic Chemicals
- Transportation/Transit
- Water
- Westly
- Workers' Compensation
- Stories
- Cavala: A Constitutional Convention for California?
- Eight Years From Bush v. Gore to Palin: The Bridge to Nowhere
- California Proposition 11: Redistricting Commission – YES
- What Does a Republican Running in an Increasingly Democratic District Do? Why Aghazarian Wants to Make Legislative Races Non-Partisan
- Prop 1A and High Speed Rail's Role in Fighting Dependence on Oil and Sprawl in California
- Schwarzenegger Vetoes Bill Recommended By Autism Commission
- Governor Schwarzenegger Can Put a Dent in Auto Repair Fraud and Protect Consumers by Signing AB 2825
- California Assembly District 26: Republican Refuses to Debate Eisenhut in Close Race Democrats May Pick Up
- Bankruptcy Relief and the Bailout
- A Renewed Call for Mortgage Reform in California
- Preschool Legislation Aimed at Closing the Achievement Gap in California Becomes Law
- Debate: Opening Advantage Obama
- Directory
- Donate
- Contact Us
RSS Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.
Our latest headlines
- Under McCain Plan Over 2.4 Million Californians Would Lose On-the-Job Health Benefits
- Cavala: More Fallacious Arguments on Prop 11 – The Governor’s Redistricting Scheme Debunked
- Seeing Through the Blue Shield Smokescreen: Drug Switching Most Certainly Does Place Minorities at Risk
- California is Not Alone in Budget Crisis and Credit Crunch Caused by National Economic Meltdown
- Proposition 2: Views Fit to Print
- Cavala: L.A. Times Columnist Wrong About Public Input into Legislative Redistricting
- Coalition of “EVERYONE” Launches No on 10 Campaign
About Us
The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.
About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.
Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.
Sponsors
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
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
Post a comment
Get Email Updates
Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.
© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.
