They love to reform the other guy but when its their turn to get screwed they scream bloody murder.
The opposition to the Reform of the Electoral College is becoming hysterical. A special interest organization, all demorats has put aside $40 million to defeat this reform initiative.
Whazzz Up!! Is it that
the democrats smell defeat in Nov. 2008 if it passes on June 3, 2008 and it will!

The reform of the Electoral College in California has caught the attention of the presidential candidates, the Republican and Democrat parties, and the major media.
Numerous articles have been reported in New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, and many more. Michael R. Blood of the Associated Press has filed two definitive reports on the effort to Reform the Electoral College in California.

Why the Reform is a really good idea!

$100,000,000! Thats right, one hundred million will be spent in California in media purchases.
Returns the power of the vote back to the people
It reinforces our founding fathers concept of representative government.
Presidential candidates will not ignore California like they did in 2000 and 2004.

California will become a competitive market in the Presidential race forcing candidates to campaign in this great state.

Grass roots political issues energy/environment will become involved in the election.
Independents votes will matter.
Rural voters will have a voice.
California will reflect its political demography.
It enhances the importance of swing voters and competitive districts.
It fairest system possible

I believe that in the US we spend less on our election system than we do on pop-corn. With that in mind I think it is very do-able. Election law now limits recognized parties to less than 10. Most folks wouldn’t want to rank 10 candidates but they sure would want to rank more than one as we currently do.

You must realize too that the Constitution leaves the running of elections to the States. That means that a state could switch to ranked choice that is compatible with the EC.

Doug, The EC has little or no effect on 3rd parties. The wasted vote syndrome is the primary inhibitor for 3rd parties followed by ballot access laws.

Exactly. Everyone read that again.

Time would be much better spent working on IRV or ranked choice voting…

Until IRV or another ranked choice method is implemented…

I’m in the “anything but plurality” camp, so I don’t want to badmouth any of the ranked choice methods, but I have to raise awareness by pointing out that there’s a much simpler option.

Approval Voting.

It’s plurality voting except you can vote for multiple candidates. That’s all it takes to eliminate most of plurality’s problems. No more spoiler effect, hello nursery effect, and it’s such a simple change that you don’t even need to alter the ballot.

Maybe with the current EC the tipping point isn’t in the right place for cordnation with the popular vote, but third parties will never even get close to the tipping point with 1st past the post elections.

No, this is revisionist history and attempting to rationalize a political institution that was the product of nothing more than the small states refusing to join into any constitutional system that didn’t allow them equal representation in at least one branch. It ranks up there with the three-fifth compromise, or kicking the ban of the slave trade down the line until 1800. A political compromise, not some product of a desire to carefully balance state and federal power.

Of course, the real solution would be to adapt the proposal AND get rid of gerrymandering.

I’m critical of implying that the Electoral College is a “balanced” or well designed system to ensure that big states and small states are both given consideration. The creation of the Senate and its foundation in how the Electoral College is allocated was really a result of small state blackmailing during the Constitutional Convention, they either wanted a system that unfairly a leg up or else they would bolt. It’s no more “balanced” than the three-fifths compromise; simply a creation of politics.

The Electoral College, along with the Senate as originally conceieved, was designed to make sure that the states retained their sovereignty and that the Federal Government was kept in check. I don’t see how eliminating the EC is going to benefit liberty.

Granted, much of the Constitution’s limitation on Federal authority was made meaningless after the New Deal, and the (ill-advised) passage of the 17th Amendment turned the Senate into just another popularly elected body.

What makes you think that eliminating the EC will benefit minority party candidates at all ?

And to you really think ranked voting can work in a country as large as the United States ?

Also, Norm is right — this system is just another way to keep 3rd parties from being relevant, except as spoilers.

Time would be much better spent working on IRV or ranked choice voting to get a truer snap-shot of the electorates intentions.

“In the end, the benefits would probably balance themselves out across the nation, and candidates would be forced to run a campaign that addresses the country as a whole, rather than one that merely focuses on a few big states.”

I haven’t looked into this post-2000 redistricting, but overall the system would have strongly favored the Republicans in 2000. The narrow Electoral College result would have been a much bigger Bush defeat of Gore, despite how close the popular vote was. House districts are horribly gerrymandered.

“First of all, it maintains the Electoral College’s purpose of balancing large states against small ones, and regions against regions while at the same time addressing one of the biggest criticisms of the way that we elect Presidents.”

I’m critical of implying that the Electoral College is a “balanced” or well designed system to ensure that big states and small states are both given consideration. The creation of the Senate and its foundation in how the Electoral College is allocated was really a result of small state blackmailing during the Constitutional Convention, they either wanted a system that unfairly a leg up or else they would bolt. It’s no more “balanced” than the three-fifths compromise; simply a creation of politics.

Also, on the question of constitutionality, I don’t think it is as clear cut as you claim it is. Some interstate compacts have been allowed without federal approval. Modern interpretation is that it limits the ability of the states to enter into compacts and agreements if they encroach on the powers of the federal government. Given that the states have the ability to allocate their electors anyway they like, I think there’s a case that it is constitutional.