POST SCRIPTS

Back in September I made this pitch to the CRA in Chico and long before that it has been part of my platform. At that same meeting an assembly candidate from another district poo poo'd the idea as silly game playing. I was a little taken back by his lack of understanding, because there is nothing silly about this, it gives currently unrepresented voters a voice in who they want to elect for president.

Our legislature wouldn't take this on because it is controlled by democrats and currently they get 100% of the electoral votes as a blue state. This had to be an initiative and the reasons Tina has stated legitimate and worthy of our support.

I prefer a popular vote with no electoral college, but until that idea sinks in I strongly support assigning electoral votes by districts.

Back in September I made this pitch to the CRA in Chico and long before that it has been part of my platform.

Good man, Jack Lee! The poo poo-er didn't get it.

there is nothing silly about this, it gives currently unrepresented voters a voice in who they want to elect for president.

Jack this is the very essence of the idea!!!

I'm a bit confused about your position on the "popular vote" though. The electoral college does the same thing for the folks in Wyoming, Idaho and Rhode Island that this would do for the folks in the various districts of California.

Without the electoral college New York, Los Angeles and a smattering of other hugely populated cities would have the bulk of the power to decide the election. Low population states in the country would not have much of a voice at all. At one time the state of Montana for instance, had fewer people in the entire state than the city of San Jose.

Two points. First, allocating electoral college votes independently per district is certainly more fair than the current winner-take-all system, but frankly your arguments in favor of it are far better addressed by simply reverting to the popular vote.

Second, although we can easily make arguments about how unfair the winner-take-all system is in California, what we do in this state undoubtedly affects what happens across the country. It is simply unfair to the minority voters in other states if California's minority gets to have their voice heard while similarly positioned voters in other parties do not get the equivalent right in other states to balance them out. This must be a nationwide, not a statewide, movement.

John I am all for that. The district vote was a compromise for those who are clinging to the electoral college method with a death grip. No way can we get the popular vote at this point in time, IMHO. So, it's sort of ok, first lets do districts and see how that works, then once it's accepted then when can move to the popular vote.

Wait, wait...one of you two must explain to me how the Ca district vote idea and the national electoral college idea are different?

Both are designed to meet the same goal...giving areas of the state (or country) a more equal say in the election process. Saying the district idea is better than "winner take all" for California and then being against the electoral college for the country seems incongruous.

I don't get it?

I prefer a popular vote with no electoral college...

Would one of you do me a favor and explain why you think the popular vote would work better in our republic.

The founders realized that the country was haeavily populated in the east and sparsley populated in the west. They designed the electoral college so that all areas of the country would have a voice in the election. Without it the west would have no power in the election process. This remains true to this day. We experience it in this state all the time. Heavely populated areas of the state like Los Angeles and the SF Bay Area effectively "rule" the state (and the presidential election) by sheer numbers.

It is simply unfair to the minority voters in other states if California's minority gets to have their voice heard while similarly positioned voters in other parties do not get the equivalent right in other states...

First we aren't really "minority" voters...we are equal voters stuck in a system stacked against us. Also voters in other states, if the state is big as in California, have the option to change the way they count their electoral college votes...they aren't helpless. Most other small states don't have that many electoral votes...because their total population is so low. They could still decide the electoral vote by fractions in districts, I guess.

No system is perfect...but tossing the electoral college seems to be a huge leap in the wrong direction...unless you two can convince me otherwise?

Anybody?

Tina in every election it comes down to one person - one vote. Every election...except one. The vote for the Presidency.

In order to understand why the electoral college system was created you have to understand history.

In its begining we only had about 4 million people in this country and they were spread out over tens of thousands of square miles. A national election campaign was a practical impossibility given the limits of communication in that day.

There was also a different mindset about the balance of power between states and federal government, not to mention political parties. The party system was not well thought of back then and was considered (perhaps rightly so) as a place for mischief and dirty tricks used to win an election.

The founding fathers considered ways that could elect or select a president and they weighted for their pros and cons. They considered a State legislature, they considered congress and even a direct vote of the people and each was flawed. The later was most flawed because of the communication limitations and one other major consideration...they (those in congress) considered the average citizen too ignorant to be trusted with a direct vote!

This is where the influence of ancient Roman Empire must have kicked in because the Electoral College mimicked in most ways Rome's Centurial
Assembly system. Rome took it's male citizens and categorized them by wealth into groups of 100 and from that group 1 was selected to cast a vote. Rome has it's influence in how the Pope was selected in the College of Cardinals. So our founding fathers, many well schooled in history, created an elite system of representation based on these classical notions.

The Electoral College was a compromise based on concerns about the education of the average citizen, about the lines of communication and with regard to historical precedence. You might also say it was to strike a fair balance between the States, large and small and the Central Government, which they also had serious concerns about. So the number of votes each state was awarded was determined by their congressional representation.

The first Electoral College only lasted a brief time and it was replaced by a modified system and that resulted in the 12th Ammendment. Basically this meant an elector could cast one vote for president and one vote for vice president.

"The 12th Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders
for that office."

Now each state's legislature may choose an elector and that electoral vote is presumably determined by the popular vote within the state.
"Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census)".

Here are the most compelling reasons why we should go to a popular vote, or at the very least a vote by district:

1. There is a possibility of electing a minority president

2. The risk of so-called "faithless" Electors, these are electors who vote in opposition to their parties wishes.

3. The possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and

4. The failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.

5. It also empowers a two party system to keep a choke hold on the nation by depriving all other challengers from a voice.

6. A direct vote empowers the voters, not the parties. A semi-direct via districts encourages voters and also the two main parties.