CA: Senate backs plan to give electoral votes to popular vote winner

AP - San Luis Obispo Tribune ^ | Aug. 22, 2006 | DON THOMPSON

[goldfinch]

The end result of this would be to make the large states more important and the small states less important. If that is what you want, then you should be for this even though it undercuts the Constitution. However, if your state has under 10 electoral votes, you can forget about ever seeing a Presidential candidate...or about having one take your concerns seriously. You flat won't matter in the world Democrat controlled legislatures want you to live in.

[stylin19a]

appointing electors and determining how they cast their vote are 2 different things.

[deport]

Popular vote for President since 1872

Year	Presidential candidate	Party	Electoral votes	Popular votes	Vice-presidential candidate and party
1872	Ulysses S. Grant Horace Greeley Thomas A. Hendricks B. Gratz Brown Charles J. Jenkins David Davis Votes not counted	Republican Dem., Liberal Rep. Democratic Dem., Liberal Rep. Democratic Democratic	286 (12) 42 18 2 1 17	3,597,132 2,834,125	Henry Wilson—R B. Gratz Brown—D, LR—(47) Scattering—(19) Vote not counted—(14)
187613	Rutherford B. Hayes Samuel J. Tilden Peter Cooper	Republican Democratic Greenback	185 184 0	4,033,768 4,285,992 81,737	William A. Wheeler—R Thomas A. Hendricks—D Samuel F. Cary—G
1880	James A. Garfield14 Winfield S. Hancock James B. Weaver	Republican Democratic Greenback	214 155 0	4,449,053 4,442,035 308,578	Chester A. Arthur—R William H. English—D B. J. Chambers—G
1884	Grover Cleveland James G. Blaine Benjamin F. Butler John P. St. John	Democratic Republican Greenback Prohibition	219 182 0 0	4,911,017 4,848,334 175,370 150,369	Thomas A. Hendricks—D John A. Logan—R A. M. West—G William Daniel—P
1888	Benjamin Harrison Grover Cleveland Clinton B. Fisk Alson J. Streeter	Republican Democratic Prohibition Union Labor	233 168 0 0	5,440,216 5,538,233 249,506 146,935	Levi P. Morton—R A. G. Thurman—D John A. Brooks—P Charles E. Cunningham—UL
1892	Grover Cleveland Benjamin Harrison James B. Weaver John Bidwell	Democratic Republican People's15 Prohibition	277 145 22 0	5,556,918 5,176,108 1,041,028 264,133	Adlai E. Stevenson—D Whitelaw Reid—R James G. Field—Peo James B. Cranfill—P
1896	William McKinley William J. Bryan   John M. Palmer Joshua Levering	Republican Dem., People's15   Natl. Dem. Prohibition	271 176   0 0	7,035,638 6,467,946   133,148 132,007	Garret A. Hobart—R Arthur Sewall—D—(149) Thomas E. Watson—Peo—(27) Simon B. Buckner—ND Hale Johnson—P
1900	William McKinley16 William J. Bryan Eugene V. Debs	Republican Dem., People's15 Social Democratic	292 155 0	7,219,530 6,358,071 94,768	Theodore Roosevelt—R Adlai E. Stevenson—D, Peo Job Harriman—SD
1904	Theodore Roosevelt Alton B. Parker Eugene V. Debs	Republican Democratic Socialist	336 140 0	7,628,834 5,084,491 402,400	Charles W. Fairbanks—R Henry G. Davis—D Benjamin Hanford—S
1908	William H. Taft William J. Bryan Eugene V. Debs	Republican Democratic Socialist	321 162 0	7,679,006 6,409,106 402,820	James S. Sherman—R John W. Kern—D Benjamin Hanford—S
1912	Woodrow Wilson Theodore Roosevelt William H. Taft Eugene V. Debs	Democratic Progressive Republican Socialist	435 88 8 0	6,286,214 4,126,020 3,483,922 897,011	Thomas R. Marshall—D Hiram Johnson—Prog Nicholas M. Butler—R17 Emil Seidel—S
1916	Woodrow Wilson Charles E. Hughes A. L. Benson	Democratic Republican Socialist	277 254 0	9,129,606 8,538,221 585,113	Thomas R. Marshall—D Charles W. Fairbanks—R G. R. Kirkpatrick—S
1920	Warren G. Harding18 James M. Cox Eugene V. Debs	Republican Democratic Socialist	404 127 0	16,152,200 9,147,353 917,799	Calvin Coolidge—R Franklin D. Roosevelt—D Seymour Stedman—S
1924	Calvin Coolidge John W. Davis Robert M. LaFollette	Republican Democratic Progressive, Socialist	382 136 13	15,725,016 8,385,586 4,822,856	Charles G. Dawes—R Charles W. Bryan—D Burton K. Wheeler—Prog, S
1928	Herbert Hoover Alfred E. Smith Norman Thomas	Republican Democratic Socialist	444 87 0	21,392,190 15,016,443 267,420	Charles Curtis—R Joseph T. Robinson—D James H. Maurer—S
1932	Franklin D. Roosevelt Herbert Hoover Norman Thomas	Democratic Republican Socialist	472 59 0	22,821,857 15,761,841 884,781	John N. Garner—D Charles Curtis—R James H. Maurer—S
1936	Franklin D. Roosevelt Alfred M. Landon Norman Thomas	Democratic Republican Socialist	523 8 0	27,751,597 16,679,583 187,720	John N. Garner—D Frank Knox—R George Nelson—S
1940	Franklin D. Roosevelt Wendell L. Willkie Norman Thomas	Democratic Republican Socialist	449 82 0	27,244,160 22,305,198 99,557	Henry A. Wallace—D Charles L. McNary—R Maynard C. Krueger—S
1944	Franklin D. Roosevelt19 Thomas E. Dewey Norman Thomas	Democratic Republican Socialist	432 99 0	25,602,504 22,006,285 80,518	Harry S. Truman—D John W. Bricker—R Darlington Hoopes—S
1948	Harry S. Truman Thomas E. Dewey J. Strom Thurmond Henry A. Wallace Norman Thomas	Democratic Republican States' Rights Dem. Progressive Socialist	303 189 39 0 0	24,179,345 21,991,291 1,176,125 1,157,326 139,572	Alben W. Barkley—D Earl Warren—R Fielding L. Wright—SR Glen Taylor—Prog Tucker P. Smith—S
1952	Dwight D. Eisenhower Adlai E. Stevenson	Republican Democratic	442 89	33,936,234 27,314,992	Richard M. Nixon—R John J. Sparkman—D
1956	Dwight D. Eisenhower Adlai E. Stevenson	Republican Democratic	457 7320	35,590,472 26,022,752	Richard M. Nixon—R Estes Kefauver—D
1960	John F. Kennedy21 Richard M. Nixon	Democratic Republican	303 21922	34,226,731 34,108,157	Lyndon B. Johnson—D Henry Cabot Lodge—R
1964	Lyndon B. Johnson Barry M. Goldwater	Democratic Republican	486 52	43,129,484 27,178,188	Hubert H. Humphrey—D William E. Miller—R
1968	Richard M. Nixon Hubert H. Humphrey George C. Wallace	Republican Democratic American Independent	301 191 46	31,785,480 31,275,166 9,906,473	Spiro T. Agnew—R Edmund S. Muskie—D Curtis F. LeMay—Al
1972	Richard M. Nixon23 George McGovern John G. Schmitz	Republican Democratic American	52024 17 0	47,169,911 29,170,383 1,099,482	Spiro T. Agnew—R Sargent Shriver—D Thomas J. Anderson—A
1976	Jimmy Carter Gerald R. Ford Eugene J. McCarthy	Democratic Republican Independent	297 24025 0	40,830,763 39,147,973 756,631	Walter F. Mondale—D Robert J. Dole—R None
1980	Ronald Reagan Jimmy Carter John B. Anderson	Republican Democratic Independent	489 49 0	43,899,248 36,481,435 5,719,437	George Bush—R Walter F. Mondale—D Patrick J. Lucey—I
1984	Ronald Reagan Walter F. Mondale	Republican Democratic	525 13	54,455,075 37,577,185	George Bush—R Geraldine A. Ferraro—D
1988	George H. Bush Michael S. Dukakis	Republican Democratic	426 11126	48,886,097 41,809,074	J. Danforth Quayle—R Lloyd Bentsen—D
1992	William J. Clinton George H. Bush H. Ross Perot	Democratic Republican Independent	370 168 0	44,909,889 39,104,545 19,742,267	Albert A. Gore, J.—D J. Danforth Quayle—R James B. Stockdale—I
1996	William J. Clinton Robert J. Dole H. Ross Perot	Democratic Republican Reform Party27	379 159 0	47,402,357 39,198,755 8,085,402	Albert A. Gore, Jr.—D Jack F. Kemp—R Pat Choate—RP27
2000	George W. Bush Albert A. Gore Ralph Nader	Republican Democratic Green Party	271 26628 0	50,456,002 50,999,897 2,882,955	Richard B. Cheney—R Joseph I. Lieberman—D Winona LaDuke—GP
2004	George W. Bush John F. Kerry	Republican Democratic	286 25129	62,028,285 59,028,109	Richard B. Cheney—R John Edwards—D

[FreedomCalls]

What we would have here is that whomever wins the popular vote nationwide would win California

Still in a winner-takes-all format? That is different than I understood it. I thought they would divide the electoral votes up according to the percentage won nationwide. Hmmm, I'll have to think about it some more if it's still winner-takes-all.

[mockingbyrd]

If they really wanted to be fair, they should just divide their electoral votes amoung all the candidates equally. To be fair and all.

I don't really see this taking off. Some of the smaller states with larger amounts of electoral votes could really lose their influence if everything just goes to the winner of the popular vote.

[So Cal Rocket]

It's not really a compact is it?

Yes, it is an interstate compact... as it does not go into effect until enough states have agreed to the terms.

From the article:

The bill, which goes back to the Assembly for a final vote, would make California part of an interstate compact.

and

If it eventually becomes law, the legislation would take effect only if states with a combined 270 electoral votes - the number now required to win the presidency - also agreed to decide the election by popular vote.

[AntiGuv]

The statute only goes into effect when states totalling 270 electoral votes also pass the same rule.

[Paleo Conservative]

You should also check out this part of the Constitution.

Article IV.
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This is a definite attempt to abolish a "Republican Form of Government".

[Paleo Conservative]

The statute only goes into effect when states totalling 270 electoral votes also pass the same rule.

But according to Article I, Section 10 it is necessary for Congress to approve of any compact between states.

[n-tres-ted]

Au contraire. The Dems know very well this would have given California to GWB in 2004. But they already lost that election. What they want to do is get this provision from as many states as possible, say NY, CA, PA, IL, et al. Then you can be sure that every person in NYC, Chicago, LA, SF and every other big city would vote in every election, one way or another, and some would vote twice. Through vote fraud, the Dems could assure their candidate wins the national vote count, thus overriding the electoral college. The electoral college was designed to isolate the effects of such vote fraud in the big cities.

[stylin19a]

nebraska & maine have proportional electorla voting.
if all states had proportinal voing, Pres. Bush would have won by a larger electoral margin in 2000 & 2004.

[BW2221]

"California would cast its 55 Electoral College votes for the winner of the national popular vote under a bill designed to change the way the president is elected and increase the state's influence in national elections."

No point in campaigning in California ... or promising them anything.

[AntiGuv]

But according to Article I, Section 10 it is necessary for Congress to approve of any compact between states.

There are hundreds of interstate compacts that were never explicitly approved by Congress. Here's a good commentary on the jurisprudence of the Interstate Compact Clause. I don't know how this particular one would get adjudicated or what Congress would do in any event.

[bboop]

They are just bound and determined to get rid of the Electoral College. Dang, those libs in Sacto are keeping us BUSY.

[FreedomCalls]

Good point.

[youthgonewild]

I think McClintock has lost his mind in not endorsing it. This is the best chance a Republican will have of getting the hugest pot of electoral votes in America.

[CindyDawg]

Can we secede Calif? Let them have their own country?

[kpp_kpp]

that's what i thought too

just think, now californians won't even have to vote (as it doesn't really matter which way that state goes) + bush still wins 00 and 04 under the formula

[Solemar]

Interesting.

It looks to me that the only time (atleast since 1872) that such a situation occurred (candidate wins popular loses electoral) was in 2000.

How petty and myopic of the CA legislature.

But what else would you expect from a bunch of mindless drooling libs.

[Clock King]

Those of you jumping on McClintock for not supporting this are wrong. The man has more sense than damn near any politician I have heard in decades. This is a Lib trick to play a long game of voter fraud.