California would have cast 55 electoral votes for George W. Bush.

[JayhawkSD]

Democrats are celebrating as one state after another passes laws to cast their electoral votes for president to "whoever wins the national popular vote." That makes sure that the state never again votes for the losing side in a presidential election.

In 2004 California voters chose John Kerry by a margin of 54.3% to 44.4% and this law would have had the College of Electors repudiate the voters of this state and cast our 55 electoral votes for George W. Bush. As repugnant as it is to have Trump in the White House, it is far more disgusting to think that my state would have cast the entirety of its electoral votes for the monster who precipitated a war of aggression in Iraq based on lies, a war that killed over one million people.

Translated, this ridiculous law means, "We'll go along with whatever everyone else decides," which is about as spineless and as foreign to every reason that I served in the military that I can think of. Whatever my state may or may not be, we didn't "go along with everyone else" and vote for George W. Bush, as your silly, childish over-reaction to the loss of one election would have us do.

[mr_lebowski]

1. To be fair, had this been in place in 2000, we might be in our 20th straight year of Democrats

Holding the office of POTUS.

Just sayin' ...

[manor321]

2. But W won anyway in 2004, so no difference. And it is two elections, not one

Two of the last three Republican victories were by losers of the popular vote. And this over-representation of rural lands is getting worse each year.

We need the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Not only does it assure the popular vote winner becomes president, the candidates will campaign where the people are instead of where land is.

[unblock]

3. going along with the will of the majority is now something to disparage?

if you believe that the president should be selected by majority vote of the people of the nation, then the majority of the people of the country elect someone, then yes, people who maybe didn't vote for that person then have to abide by the decision of the majority and maybe even do things to make the chosen candidate president even if they personally didn't vote for that person.

it's called democracy and it's not spineless and i certainly hope it's not something foreign to the reasons you served in the military.


the electoral college is based on a quite peculiar notion that the president shouldn't be elected by the people of the country, but rather by the states with a strange allocation of electoral votes. if you believe that that rather imperfect idea of democracy is the only thing that makes sense, then fine, go ahead and oppose the idea of a national popular vote.

but please don't call abiding by majority vote "spineless". it's anything but.

in the example you give, california would merely agreeing to abide by the will of the entire nation in an election where the people of california had a say in exact proportion to the number of californians who voted in that election. if californians were outvoted, then there's nothing odd or strange or wrong with california's electoral votes going to the winner of the nationwide majority candidate.



alternatively, if california's electoral votes go entirely to one candidate, should orange county complain if they voted for the republican and the state went blue? should san francisco complain if they voted for the democrat but the state went red?


the real question is should the nation be broken into chunks and we have elections for president at the chunk level rather than have one big election at the national level. personally, i think the idea to conduct a national election as a weird aggregate of state-level elections is a silly concept whose time has passed and that has proven itself to be defective.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. I don't understand the point...

What did winning California's 55 electoral votes get Kerry?

[fleabiscuit]

5. Perhaps not.

You can't go back in time and be certain the results would have been the same under different rules.

[pnwmom]

6. It's not a ridiculous law. When have the Republicans lost the EC but won the popular vote? But it's

happened twice to Democrats since 2000 and it's likely to keep happening, because they have a built-in structural advantage.

The compact would only take effect if there were 270 electoral votes among states that signed on. So if a Democrat had enough popular votes to win, but not enough EC votes, then the compact would make sure the Democrat won -- even if for some reason CA's votes weren't going to the Dem.

Because of the extra advantage the Republican, rural, white states have in the Electoral College (they get more EC votes than states with more urban/minority voters) the chances that a Republican would benefit under this compact are almost nil.

[Tiggeroshii]

7. That is because he won the popular vote.

in that election. This law would have given Al Gore and Hillary the presidency. The popular vote is the only electoral factor that should matter in choosing a president.

[NYC Liberal]

8. And Bush wouldn't have been running in 2004 if it had been in place in 2000.

[allgood33]

9. Thank you!

[John Fante]

10. Sorry, no.

GWB winning California's electoral votes in 2004 would have been seen for what it was - a product of Bush winning the popular vote. A meaningless gesture that in no way indicates how the state voted.

I fail to see how this is worse than Trump's victory in 2016, an election in which he recieved 2.9 millon fewer votes than his opponent. The electoral college is a piece of crap that's completely undemocratic. Why should my vote count less than a rural voter's just because I choose to live in a big city?

All persons are created equal, and that should include value of their votes.

[JayhawkSD]

11. Not a rational response in the bunch.

This nation is governed by a constitution. It has elections in the manner that is prescribed by that constitution, prescribed in a manner which is consistent with what this nation is. This nation is not governed by national popular vote, we are a federation of states and are governed by a consensus of those states. Laws are passed in that manner, judges are confirmed in that manner, and the president is elected in that manner.

If you believe that the constitution, and thereby the nature of this nation, needs to be changed, then change the constitution. There is a method prescribed in the constitution by which that can be done, a method which has been employed more than two dozen times. To change the constitution by a back door manipulation of "clever" laws is not the way to do it.

[DeltaLitProf]

12. Except . . .

. . . that Constitution allows for states to make compacts of this very sort.

[Recursion]

13. The popular vote compact is 100% Constitutional

The Constitution says each state shall appoint electors in such a manner as the state legislature shall direct. This is the state legislature directing how electors shall be appointed.

[Codeine]

18. I would deem the responses

more rational than your rant. States can assign their electoral votes as they please, and should they decide to form a compact that assigns said votes to the winner of the popular vote then that’s a Constitutional decision.

As to what California would have done for Bush, well he won, didn’t he? More people voted for him than his opponent. Our EC votes weren’t enough to change the outcome, so why would it be an issue?

[denbot]

14. Um, isn't it the popular vote state wide?

To the added to the electoral college totals?

[Recursion]

16. The Popular Vote compact is an agreement among states to give their electors

to whatever candidate wins the national popular vote, regardless of that state's vote totals.

[kcr]

15. Well, if you think going along with what everyone else decides is ridiculous

Then, I guess you're pretty ok with the electoral vote to begin with, because that's kind of the point.

[jcgoldie]

17. nonsense

What difference does it make who your state casts their votes for if republicans like Bush and Trump repeatedly become president after receiving less votes because the votes of rednecks in the Dakotas count twice what yours in CA does?