Tuesday, September 11, 2007
AP Takes California Electoral Fight to a Very "Cat's in the Cradle" Place
As this Media Matters article points out, the GOP's support for a ballot measure to completely gut the California Electoral Delegation was written about, with no mention of their fathering of the measure. This should make the Presidential Election Reform Act feel very abandoned, as his estranged father gives a nod of proud support from across the room, but no hug.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person’s vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and 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. Of course, if the district approach were unilaterally adopted by one 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, cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to that state. Under the winner-take-all rule (whether applied to districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In California, the presidential race is a foregone conclusion in 50 of the state’s 53 districts, so candidates will continue to ignore California. Nationwide, there are only 55 districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states are ignored; however, seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if the district-level winner-take-all approach were used nationally.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and to guarantee the White House to the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The 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 possessing 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). The National Popular Vote bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the 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
Post a Comment