[xjcsa]

This may or may not be a good idea, but the author, like many others, lumps this idea in with Democratic proposals to tie state electoral votes to the national popular vote. The Democratic proposals undermine the Constitutional intent of the Electoral College; the current California proposal is well within the letter, spirit, and intent of the Constitution and is already practiced by some states. The two are *not* equivalent. In my opinion this is a poorly-argued piece, which is somewhat unusual from Opinion Journal.

[jim_trent]

Not saying it is right or wrong, but I believe there are two states that already do this.

[Perdogg]

Maryland is a solid blue state whose state house approved a bill that would give its electorial votes to the popular vote winner.

This means in 2004, its votes despite the state voters, would have gone to Bush.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

If Georgia passed a similar law, I would estimate DEMs would be guaranteed 4 congressional districts, GOP 7 with 2 that could go either way; the GOP would win the 2 for the statewide.

[Leatherneck_MT]

I have a better idea

Return selection of Senators to the houses of each state, and the selection of the President and Vice President back to that senate.

Problem solved.

[Gay State Conservative]

A group of California voters would,IMO,have a very strong case to challenge any law that that awards the state’s electoral votes based on such a formula.

[Red Badger]

If you really wanna get right down to it, the (any) State Legislature could just award the electoral votes to the DEMOCRAT candidate in perpetuity and it would be constitutional.........

[xzins]

The issue is the Constitution. As I understand the US Constitution, states get to determine how they allot their electoral votes. Maine is one state that does not give all of them to the popular vote winner in that state. (Isn’t Colorado another?) The constitution does not require that all electors belong to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state.

I believe one purpose of electors is to provide a degree of separation from the popular vote so that serious folk get to carefully consider the person being elevated to the presidency. If, for instance, it were to come out after the election, but before the electoral college meeting that the nominee had been a long-time double agent for some foreign power, then the electors could choose not to elevate that person to the office.

Another purpose was to prevent large population states from running roughshod over smaller population states by requiring that each state have a minimum of 3 electors no matter how much smaller their population was.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

In 2004, California gave all 55 electoral votes to John Kerry. If the proposed plan were to have been in effect (as it is in Maine and Nebraska), John Kerry would have only recieved 33 electoral votes (31 Congressional District Electors plus 2 overall Electors), while George Bush would have recieved 22 electoral votes.

[bilhosty]

I got a better idea. Let the electrol college be solely determined by members of the Freerepublic.com. Membership will be frozen of course effective today.

[goldstategop]

Exactly. It also has an unintended consequence in that in the unlikely event California voters voted for the Democrat but the nation went for the Republican candidate, the statewide vote of Californians for the candidate their choice would be nullified.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Badeye]

The Dems have known since 2000 Hillary Clinton couldn’t win a national election cycle with the Electoral College ‘intact’.

It was one of the first, if not the first, public pronouncements made by incoming freshman Senator Clinton as I recall, to dump the EC.

[pgyanke]

What's wrong with this picture? Two things. It plays directly into the hands of the left-wing movement to ditch the Electoral College altogether, declaring the aggregate winner of the popular vote to be the president. This means that a handful of large cities--voting mostly Democrat--would decide the national outcome.

Um... that's what's happening now. The Bay Area and LA are giving all of CA's 55 electoral votes to the Democrats even though the rest of the state tends red. The new apportionment system actually reduces the power of the urban centers.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Democratic proposals undermine the Constitutional intent of the Electoral College; the current California proposal is well within the letter, spirit, and intent of the Constitution...

Article II, Section 1: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."

It appears to me that the letter of the Constitution says that the states may assign their electoral votes anyway they please.

[Tzimisce]

It’s a bad idea. These laws are written so that the votes go to the *perceived* winner of the election. And (how’s this for surprising) the perceived winner will almost always be the left wing candidate.

[Chi-townChief]

I like the one electoral vote per county plan myself.

[WOSG]

“The only idea out there worse than this one is embodied in California Senate Bill 37, dreamt up by Sen. Carol Migden, who is better known for having pleaded nolo contendere last week to a misdemeanor charge of reckless driving over a 30-mile stretch of Interstate 80. Her bill, if it became law, would mandate that all of California’s electoral votes would be rewarded to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how Californians had voted. This would turn the Electoral College upside down, which is her purpose. It is a case of myopia, based on left-wing ire over the 2000 Bush-Gore race.”

Yes, I vote that as the stupidest distortion of democracy ever devised.

It means the ‘winner’ in California depends on numbers and votes that *NO OFFICIAL IN CALIFORNIA HAS ANY LEGAL ABILITY TO VERIFY*.

Liberal loooney idea.

And yes, it is quite different to divide EC into cong districts. (But that is worrisome too as it is subject to gerry mander).

[Pietro]

Hasn’t anyone noticed that its only blue states that are doing this stupidity. Let me, they’re freakin’ morons!

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

The Electoral College protects and gives voice to the minority voter (the loser). Period. For Leftists to overthrow the EC is to betray those they supposedly support.

But it is in-keeping with their tyrannical quest for power.