Make California's Electoral Votes Proportional

Change.org ^

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

In my dreams. Trump would have gotten 18 electoral votes if this happened. Hillary would have gotten 33 instead of 55.

California is a commie Dem Rat stronghold and they would NEVER allow this to happen. It would have to be lead by referendum but the overwhelming liberal majority would shoot it down. If by some miracle it passed, the commie Rats would send it to the courts and the 9th Circus would deem it “unconstitutional”.

But, from your lips to God’s ears. It would be fantabulous if California’s electoral votes were split in relation to the popular vote. I have wanted this for years, but it will never happen. The commie rats who run the state know it will challenge their stranglehold. When you already own a state lock, stock, and barrel, why would they volunteer to give up that power.

[aumrl]

yes 13
similar to the ‘Mundt plan’

EXcept for DC
The old boundaries of the District should be reestablished.
With no votes nationally. The founders did have this correct.

[Brilliant]

Won’t happen while Dems are in control but it’s a good idea to press them and accuse them of hypocrisy.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Honestly, I wish we would just cut the state in half above San Francisco.

[Gene Eric]

One county, one vote.

[P-Marlowe]

California can do this through the initiative process. 😊

[Alberta's Child]

There's a difference between proportional electoral votes and the district-based system that Maine and Nebraska use. I'd be OK with the latter, but a direct proportional allocation of electoral votes would present all kinds of problems.

It's probably not in a state's best interest to do this anyway. What would happen if Clinton got 51% of the popular vote in California and Trump got 49%? If the 55 electoral votes are awarded proportionally, then Clinton would get 28 and Trump would get 27. This means that California effectively would have only one electoral vote in the presidential election. Even in a major blowout where one candidate gets 65% and the other gets 35%, you're looking at a 36-19 split in the electoral vote ... which means California's electoral vote gets heavily diluted compared to other large states.

[Myrddin]

Frankly, all states should use the proportional approach. You want the vote from a district, you pay attention to the people there to earn it. No flyover country. Every district has the same number of citizens. Every one is worthy of having its vote included. The two state elector votes should come from the state government. That's the point of those two votes in every state. A fully proportional approach would muzzle the popular vote idiots. We don't need mobocracy from the big cities to the exclusion of more sparsely populated areas.

[TigerClaws]

No. California would have 55, but the 49% crowd in California wouldn’t be completely disenfranchised.

I think we need to keep Dems on the defensive. They are all about one person/ one vote and don’t disenfranchise voters. So they can agree not to do that here and allow Californians the chance to be represented in the Electoral College proportional to their vote.

[Oatka]

IMO, this should be done in all states as it would break the power of the Democratic-heavy Metro areas which call the shots with the current-winner-take-all approach. It disenfranchises all the red rural areas.

CA has 55 Electoral Votes and 53 Congressional Districts. So, roughly, the Frisco/Angeles Metro areas take 30 or so EVs, the Republicans get the other 25 and CA is no longer the powerhouse it is now.

Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen in CA - or any other state with a Democratic majority.

[Lmo56]

I have argued for this for years.

[DIRTYSECRET]

The issue was on the ballot in June 20008 or 2012. Didn’t pass-waste of time even though it would of helped.

[Myrddin]

To clarify, the "district" in my example is a Congressional district as designed in the Census with an equal number of persons represented by a Congressional representative for that district. You earn the electoral vote by winning a majority of votes from inside that district. I'm not advocating proportionality based on the gross popular vote percentage. Strictly by Congressional district.

[doragsda]

The Constitution doesn’t specify how the EV are divvied up, it leaves that up to the states.

I support this idea. If it had been in place nationwide for this election, Trump’s margin of victory would have been even higher.

1 EV per congressional district plus the two statewide per state.

[Kadric]

If you do it by the way it was enumerated then DC gets no votes it is not a State

[Myrddin]

I sold my house in San Diego and moved to Idaho in 2000. My vote in CA no longer counted. The rolls are full of dead people, illegal aliens and Democrats (I'm being redundant). The taxes and 2nd Amendment infringements were endless. Moving fixed that. This evening I'm looking forward to the first snow of the season. That's so much better than sunshine, gang violence, traffic jams, ridiculous laws and high taxes.

[okie01]

They [the Dems] are all about one person/ one vote and don’t disenfranchise voters. So they can agree not to do that here and allow Californians the chance to be represented in the Electoral College proportional to their vote.

Whereupon, they will go one step further -- to a popular vote nationally, the ultimate expression of "one man, one vote".

In other words, that argument isn't convincing.

[OrangeHoof]

Go ahead. Make my day.

[Kandy Atz]

Whatever happened to that movement to divide California into smaller states?

[RainMan]

Would love to see this in WA. I am going to forward this to Tim Eyman!!