tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5879846109601593261.post5563881944942232779..comments2024-02-08T06:15:12.164-08:00Comments on California Focus Syndicated Column: ELECTING PRESIDENT BY DISTRICT FINE – BUT ONLY IF EVERYONE DOES ITCalifornia Focushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04519309712423264033noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5879846109601593261.post-74757738678244419362011-02-18T15:49:56.922-08:002011-02-18T15:49:56.922-08:00In a 2008 survey, 70% of California residents and ...In a 2008 survey, 70% of California residents and likely voters supported changing to a national popular vote. Democrats (76%) and independents (74%) were more likely to support a change to direct popular vote than Republicans, but 61 percent of Republicans also supported this change. Among likely voters, support for this change was 6 points higher than in October 2004 (64%).<br /><br />http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#CA_2008OCTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5879846109601593261.post-10868855625440221022011-02-18T15:48:08.627-08:002011-02-18T15:48:08.627-08:00Dividing a state's electoral votes by congress...Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person's vote equally important to presidential campaigns. <br /><br />If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts. <br /><br />The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws(whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 "battleground" districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally. <br /><br />Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.<br /><br />A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5879846109601593261.post-38585992883913132352011-02-18T15:46:46.168-08:002011-02-18T15:46:46.168-08:00The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the...The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).<br /><br />Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states or districts. No more distorting and divisive red and blue district and state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.<br /><br />The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).<br /><br />In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO-- 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI-- 73%, MO-- 70%, NH-- 69%, NV-- 72%, NM-- 76%, NC-- 74%, OH-- 70%, PA -- 78%, VA -- 74%, and WI -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE --75%, ID – 77%, ME -- 77%, MT – 72%, NE -- 74%, NH --69%, NV -- 72%, NM -- 76%, OK – 81%, RI -- 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT -- 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR --80%, KY -- 80%, MS --77%, MO -- 70%, NC -- 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, VA -- 74%, and WV – ‘81%; and in other states polled: CA -- 70%, CT -- 74% , MA -- 73%, MN – 75%, NY -- 79%, OR – 76%, and WA -- 77%.<br /><br />The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.<br /><br />http://www.NationalPopularVote.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com