Proposed ballot measure would ask if California should join a national popular vote movement — but the state already did

Should California’s elected officials do everything in their power to make the country decide presidential elections by a national popular vote?

A recently-introduced ballot measure asks just that, coming on the heels of the second presidential election since 2000 where the candidate with the most votes lost in the Electoral College, which is mostly a winner-take-all system based on statewide popular vote.

But there’s one catch: California passed legislation in 2011 joining a national effort to scrap the current system in favor of the national popular vote, which CalWatchdog wrote about in February. 

Besides being largely redundant, the ballot measure would be merely advisory, with no force of law (the measure only asks if policy makers should do something; it doesn’t direct them to do anything). It’s similar in effect to Prop. 59 from the November ballot, which focused on campaign finance law

“My focus is less on exact means than on the goal,” said the measure’s proponent, Rod Howard, an attorney who specializes in mergers and acquisitions. “The interstate NPV compact is one approach, and an ingenious one. But it’s only one approach, and it does not yet have the force of law.”

Ten states and the District of Columbia have signed onto the interstate compact, totaling 165 electoral votes. The effort needs 105 more electoral votes to go into effect, theoretically. 

Other options

There are other options besides the interstate compact, although they are much more elusive. The states could amend the Constitution or call for a Constitutional Convention. But neither option is realistic, due to the two-thirds threshold of support, particularly following an election where the majority of states picked Republican Donald Trump, who won the Electoral College, but lost the popular vote.

The state could pursue litigation, the measure argues, as well as a proportionate system, like those used in Maine and Nebraska, where electoral votes are allocated based on both the popular vote and success in congressional districts, instead of the winner-take-all system. 

Howard’s belief though is that more could and should be done to throw away the current system. The timing may be not be ideal though, as efforts to move to a national popular vote could be panned as partisan and reactionary against Trump (although that may fade by 2018). 

Public opinion

And Americans are souring on the idea. A Gallup poll taken in December showed 47 percent of Americans want to keep the Electoral College. And while that’s just shy of a majority, support has increased substantially since 2011, when only 35 percent said they supported the centuries-old institution. 

Language

Here’s the measure’s language in its entirety: 

“Shall California’s elected officials use all of their federal and state constitutional and legal authority to cause the President and Vice President of the United States to be elected in a manner that follows (and, until then, more closely and more consistently follows) the outcome of the national popular vote for those offices, including, but not limited to, their authority to propose and ratify one or more amendments to the United States Constitution to eliminate or modify the Electoral College process, their authority to approve and adopt interstate compacts such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and their authority to propose, adopt and pursue related legislation and litigation?”

37 comments

Write a comment
  1. Bruce
    Bruce 30 December, 2016, 12:12

    Should the United States be ruled by Ca. and N.Y. solely or understand the genius of our Founders for equal representation?

    Reply this comment
    • Dude
      Dude 30 December, 2016, 13:24

      They understand nothing Bruce. They are too busy in their safe spaces crying….using crayons to draw pictures of Hillary. All the while, stomping their collective feet and demanding a version of a recount that will successfully put the Hildebeast in the White House.

      Reply this comment
    • oldgulph
      oldgulph 30 December, 2016, 19:39

      In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

      In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote

      In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
      Trump won those states.

      The 6 million vote margin in California and New York wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

      In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

      New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
      About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

      New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes.

      Reply this comment
      • Bruce
        Bruce 30 December, 2016, 19:45

        The point was a few heavily populated states could rule the U.S. Add in the few you mentioned and less than 10 states or so dictate over the remaining 40 or so!

        Reply this comment
        • oldgulph
          oldgulph 31 December, 2016, 10:47

          Now, a presidential candidate could lose while winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

          With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

          In 2012, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), voters in just 60 counties and DC could have elected the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters

          Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

          Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
          “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,”
          “The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

          Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

          With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

          In the 2016 general election campaign

          Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

          Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country’s population).

          Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

          In 2000, a shift of 269 popular votes in Florida would have elected the candidate who led the national popular vote by 537,179 popular votes.

          Less than 80,000 votes in 3 states determined the 2016 election, where there was a lead of over 2,8oo,ooo popular votes nationwide.

          Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in 1, 2, or 3 states would have elected a 2nd-place candidate in 6 of the 18 presidential elections

          In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.

          Reply this comment
  2. Dude
    Dude 30 December, 2016, 12:53

    My question, “When will the whiny, liberal, cry babies accept the results of the fair and honest election?” Don’t they realize how hypocritical they are, considering their pre-election insistence that Trump accept the results of the election???

    Reply this comment
    • oldgulph
      oldgulph 30 December, 2016, 19:41

      In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

      Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

      Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

      The National Popular Vote bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
      Since 2006, the bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

      Reply this comment
  3. Richard Rider
    Richard Rider 30 December, 2016, 13:22

    I so enjoy such efforts by the left. Hopefully it costs them a bundle to try to essentially repeal/amend the Electoral College. Even better, it would keep liberal activists busy on this hopeless project. Otherwise they’d be working on something much more harmful.

    For such an Electoral College change to take place, it requires a Constitutional amendment, ratified by THREE-FOURTHS of the state legislatures. Not gonna happen. The smaller, more conservative “fly over” states would be unwise to lose this bulwark against simple majority rule — instead retaining the Republic as it was originally envisioned and enacted.

    Yes, there’s a chance a Constitutional Convention could be called, but that’s a two-edged sword that neither side is comfortable with. And even then, the Amendments would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

    Reply this comment
    • oldgulph
      oldgulph 30 December, 2016, 19:44

      Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
      “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
      The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

      Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

      In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

      The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

      The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

      States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

      The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

      The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

      Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

      The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
      Since 2006, the bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

      It is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes and majority of Electoral College votes.

      Reply this comment
      • Richard Rider
        Richard Rider 31 December, 2016, 09:47

        It’s a meaningless “feel good” resolution without teeth, and without opposition. Wait until it’s an actual mandated change, and then watch the “fly over” states get serious about it.

        Note how few states use anything but “winner take all” Electoral College voting. THAT’s a better indicator of the bill’s chances of passage.

        Reply this comment
        • oldgulph
          oldgulph 31 December, 2016, 10:45

          Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

          An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

          Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

          Reply this comment
  4. Spurwing Plover
    Spurwing Plover 30 December, 2016, 15:31

    Moonbeam and Cuomo both of these blabbering poltroons and nincompoops need to be stranded in the wildererness along with a few PETA and GREENPEACE nutcases

    Reply this comment
  5. Partybreaker
    Partybreaker 30 December, 2016, 16:29

    My daughter is apolitical, but the moral righteosness of the Dems amazes her. She says Bill got a blow job in the Whie house, and they Act like Trump is most evil man ever born. She says, ” a fucking blow job in the Oval office.’ it would be one thing if Hillary swallowed Billy, but no way. He is nit putting that fhing in her mouth.

    Reply this comment
  6. Mike
    Mike 30 December, 2016, 19:01

    Partybreaker, Rumours are that Hillary did take in Nolan Richardson while Billy was governor. Bill messed around, Hillary liked basketballs.

    Reply this comment
  7. oldgulph
    oldgulph 30 December, 2016, 19:34

    No state uses a proportionate method.

    Maine (only since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (only since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

    When Nebraska in 2008 gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state, it was the first split electoral vote of any state in the past century.
    2016 is the first time one electoral vote in Maine will be given to the candidate who did not win the state.

    Reply this comment
  8. oldgulph
    oldgulph 30 December, 2016, 19:35

    On 60 Minutes on November 13, 2016, President-Elect Trump reaffirmed his long-standing opposition to the current method of electing the President and said:
    “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

    Reply this comment
  9. ricky65
    ricky65 31 December, 2016, 07:50

    Oldgulph seems to be all over the Constitution and the Electoral college but seems to unable to comprehend the reasoning and genius of the framers or the concept of a republic form of government.
    The electoral college system allows people from different states, cultural differences and economic needs to unite in a republic form of government. It was intended to give all the states equal say in the affairs of the nation. It is also the only way to unite a nation as large as ours and has worked for 220 years and is one of the longest running government systems in history.
    There is no way people from Idaho, Iowa, or Indiana, for instance, will allow the left wing crazies from a few cities like New York, SF and LA run their lives.
    If we truly had a popular vote system the US would break apart into a collection of regional nations within a few years.
    Move to Europe, oldgulph. See how well that experiment in popular vote democracy is working for the people of the member states of the EU.
    The EU is the next big breakup on the horizon. It will be placed in the dustbin of history like the Soviet Union or the Roman, Persian or Ottoman empires.
    Our system may not be perfect, but we’ll keep it, thank you.

    Reply this comment
    • oldgulph
      oldgulph 31 December, 2016, 10:31

      Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

      Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
      “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,”
      “The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

      Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

      With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

      In the 2016 general election campaign

      Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

      Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country’s population).

      In the 2012 general election campaign

      38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

      More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states..

      Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

      Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

      Reply this comment
    • oldgulph
      oldgulph 31 December, 2016, 10:32

      Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

      Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

      Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
      “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

      Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
      “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

      Reply this comment
    • oldgulph
      oldgulph 31 December, 2016, 10:34

      Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

      Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

      “Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

      Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a “safe” state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a “swing” state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida’s shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states – like water issues in the west.

      The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, from the free-trade party.

      Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).

      Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years is skewed to battleground states

      Reply this comment
    • oldgulph
      oldgulph 31 December, 2016, 10:35

      Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
      “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
      The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

      Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

      In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

      The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

      The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

      States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

      Reply this comment
    • oldgulph
      oldgulph 31 December, 2016, 10:40

      The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

      Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

      None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
      The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

      Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

      Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

      Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

      The National Popular Vote bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
      Since 2006, the bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
      The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

      Reply this comment
    • oldgulph
      oldgulph 31 December, 2016, 10:42

      In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

      The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

      The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

      Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

      The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
      All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

      The bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the presidential candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

      In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

      And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don’t matter to presidential candidates.
      Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.
      Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
      8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

      Reply this comment
  10. Dude
    Dude 31 December, 2016, 09:55

    oldgulph – You left out the most important truth….. the Dims didn’t complain about the electoral college until Hitlery lost.

    Reply this comment
    • oldgulph
      oldgulph 31 December, 2016, 10:33

      In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

      Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

      Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

      The National Popular Vote bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
      Since 2006, the bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

      Reply this comment
  11. Lb1
    Lb1 31 December, 2016, 14:12

    It is amazing how these loony idiots try and make people believe that that disgrace of a woman Hitlery won popular vote, how ludicrous is that. Her, that idiot Obama and all their minions was right up in our face with how they were illegally allowing thousands of illegals vote, not to count the dead people. There was so much voting fraud going on it is ridiculous . Of course this is how they have been winning for years so it is natural to them. Obama won illegally to as well as Feinstien, Boxer, and the rest of these traitors. That’s how they stay in office for their entire worthless lives. Den of vipers is what they all are.

    Reply this comment
    • Bill - San Jose
      Bill - San Jose 31 December, 2016, 20:48

      Fact shows you are right. If not for large, communist population centers, she lost in a landslide.

      God Bless the founders for knowing better.

      Reply this comment
      • oldgulph
        oldgulph 1 January, 2017, 13:21

        Voters in the biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

        16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

        16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
        The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

        Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

        Reply this comment
      • oldgulph
        oldgulph 1 January, 2017, 13:22

        The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

        The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

        Reply this comment
  12. Mike
    Mike 31 December, 2016, 16:57

    Here is a vote that Oldgulph has a stroke, soon. Nomoreoldgulph.

    Reply this comment
    • Ulysses Uhaul
      Ulysses Uhaul 31 December, 2016, 23:19

      What dank ancient cave and tribe he from?

      Reply this comment
    • ricky65
      ricky65 1 January, 2017, 09:31

      Jeez, yes. When I set out to reply to some of oldgulph’s regurgitations I did not realize I’d be debating an effing robot programmed by the DNC.
      Maybe CWD needs one of those ‘captcha’ things that says: ‘I am not a robot’.

      Reply this comment
  13. Bill - San Jose
    Bill - San Jose 31 December, 2016, 20:46

    When the Constitution is used, abused actually, for the protection of the minority voice … but then it becomes a nuisance when the majority of large city dwellers are unhappy, you can tell anyone who thinks this all but perfect system is antiquated or not correct to kiss my hairy ass.

    Reply this comment
    • oldgulph
      oldgulph 1 January, 2017, 13:19

      On 60 Minutes on November 13, 2016, President-Elect Trump reaffirmed his long-standing opposition to the current method of electing the President and said:
      “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

      In 2012, Trump tweeted, “the Electoral College is a disaster for a democracy” and called it “a total sham and a travesty.”

      Reply this comment
    • oldgulph
      oldgulph 1 January, 2017, 13:20

      Before this election, in Gallup polls since they began asking in 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

      Reply this comment
  14. Bill Gore
    Bill Gore 31 December, 2016, 20:56

    The left loves to change the rules after they lose, then they inevitably get bitten in the ASS. Example:Harry Reid’s changing of the filibuster rules in the Senate. OOPS! Now Schumer says the old rules apply. Uh no, Chuck, rules is rules…..
    Change the presidential election to popular vote and, as day follows night, the next democrat presidential candidate will lose the popular vote but would have won the electoral college.Democrats need to sit down and talk about the fact that Hillary was just an AWFUL candidate. She lost because she DESERVED to lose, EVEN DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE DOES INDEED HAVE A VAGINA!

    Reply this comment
  15. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 31 December, 2016, 23:17

    No one reads boring TOMES. ……..enough with nonsense and self adulation……no mas!

    Short and pithy!

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*


Tags assigned to this article:
Electoral Collegenational popular voterod howard

Related Articles

Contra Costa supervisors paid twice for vehicle costs

Some members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors are facing sharp questions about their ethics and honesty over

Nava's paycheck protection hypocrisy

JUNE 15, 2010 By LAURA SUCHESKI If Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, has his way, the days of corporate-funded political

Gov. Jerry Brown signs host of significant legislation

SACRAMENTO – The 2016 legislative season is officially over, with Gov. Jerry Brown having signed 900 bills while vetoing 159 by