Am I Like the Last Person in California to Know This?

[Le Taz Hot]

California’s Popular Vote Bill Signed Into Law

SACRAMENTO (CBS/AP) — Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill that would award all of California’s 55 Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections.

The movement by a group called National Popular Vote aims to prevent a repeat of 2000, when Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but Republican George W. Bush won the electoral vote. The group’s proposed changes would ensure the winner of the national popular vote becomes president.

With Brown’s signature Monday, California became the eighth state to sign on, giving the effort 132 of the 270 electoral votes it needs to take effect.


http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/08/08/californias-popular-vote-bill-signed-into-law/

So, if the popular vote goes to say, Jeb Bush in 2016, all 55 of California's electoral college votes go to Jeb? Am I reading this right?

[NV Whino]

1. I would think it would be popular vote by state

But maybe not.

Er, nope. It says national popular. Vote.

[Make7]

2. It wouldn't go into effect until all the states that sign on add up to 270 electoral votes.

So unless between now and November 2016 a bunch of additional states all pass similar laws and their combined electoral votes add up to 138 - this will not be in play.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. OK, I see that now.

IMO, this is a BAAAAAAAAAAD idea.

[simak]

4. Yep. Natl Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Once the compact has the necessary number of votes, there's a schedule for becoming active. It has to be active by a certain date, or it won't take effect till the next election. Likewise, states must exit the compact by a certain date or they will be considered committed to an upcoming election.

The compact guarantees that the popular candidate gets at least 270 electoral votes. This usually happens anyway, but there have been a few exceptions, notably Gore v Bush. The compact prevents that from happening again.

All previous occurrences have resulted in a Republican winning the electoral college even though a Democrat won the popular. So your example, Jeb Bush, is more likely to lose because of the compact than to win.

However, if a state does have its electors go to the candidate who lost its own popular vote as a result of the compact, don't be surprised to see them exit the compact before the next election. I expect the compact will collapse after one election.

[Le Taz Hot]

6. Thank you for the clarification.

And your last paragraph? Riots in the streets, I guarantee you.

[arcane1]

5. It's news to me! WTF is the advantage here?

Someone could lose the popular vote in California, and yet get our electoral votes??

[valerief]

7. No, national vote. If most **people** in the US vote for the Dem (and most do),

CA gives its electoral college votes to the Dem.

Looks like a way to fight gerrymandering, which nearly always helps the GOP.

[arcane1]

10. Right, but that could be someone who lost CA but won the national.

That would suck!

[valerief]

11. If you're a progressive, I wouldn't worry. I think most **people** vote Dem.

It's the gerrymandering and suck-ass electoral college that fucks us over.

[underpants]

15. The Cali vote, which is sizeable, would contribute to the national total

Basically the blue states - the coasts - would decide the Presidency.

[Auggie]

8. I didn't know about it either ...

and I'm not sure how I feel.

IMO the electoral process is outdated and has become too easily manipulated. And it can't be eliminated without a constitutional convention, right? So this is essentially a way around that.

Since heavily-populated metro areas tend to lean liberal, why couldn't this be good?

[Le Taz Hot]

9. Even though it's not close to

qualifying yet, can you imagine all of California's electoral college votes going to a Republican if the state went for the Democrat? That's just wrong.

[valerief]

12. But the OP says the POPULAR vote has to be NATIONAL, not state.

Most **people** vote Dem. Gerrymandering fucks us over. Those are fucking gerrymandered district votes, not popular votes.

[Le Taz Hot]

14. Well, the way I'm reading this

(and this is if it reaches the required 270) if, say in 2016, California goes for Hillary but the popular vote is won by Jeb, all our electoral college votes would go to Jeb. There is no way I can wrap my head around that and make it sound OK.

[Auggie]

20. Read all about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Schwarzenegger vetoed it in 2007.

[dreamnightwind]

13. Thanks, old but I didn't know it either

Sounds like an end-around to subvert the electoral college in favor of the popular vote. If that's truly what it does, that's great.

[oldandhappy]

16. I did not know this.

I am startled. So CA as a state will support the national most votes winner vs the person the majority actually vote for in the state? Hmmm This portends a true national election. Not sure how I feel about being the only state doing it!!

[Le Taz Hot]

17. We're actually not doing it yet.

Enough states have to sign on to total 270 electoral college votes. Right now it's only up to 132 so it's not a done deal but I didn't even know this was in the works.

[oldandhappy]

18. wow Bigger than I understood. wow

So this is a national movement. Hmmmm Now I really do have to think about it!! Thanks.

[niyad]

19. how about just getting rid of the damned electoral college?

[SoapBox]

21. I didn't know...

I'll have to ask my partner...he seems to hear about these things.

Hmmmmmm....I am going to need to think about this.