tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22913587.post8878860332854545188..comments2023-10-29T03:29:27.319-05:00Comments on North<br>Texas<br>Liberal: Bob Perry Linked to California Electoral ScamBradleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00021020679332430458noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22913587.post-6610976452546551662007-09-08T19:47:00.000-05:002007-09-08T19:47:00.000-05:00The ballot measure to divide California’s 55 elect...The ballot measure to divide California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated system of electing the President. <BR/><BR/>If the district approach were used nationally, it would less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. If the district approach were installed in only one large state such as California, it would greatly increase the chance that the winner of the presidential election would not have received the most votes nationwide. <BR/><BR/>The district approach would not, as claimed, make California relevant in presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to campaign in districts (or states) where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Currently, candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their money and visits on just six closely divided “battleground” states, and 99% of their expenditures in just 16 states. Thus, two thirds of the states are ignored in presidential elections (including California). In California, the presidential race is a foregone conclusion in 50 of the state’s 53 congressional districts. Candidates would have no incentive than they do now to pay attention to California remaining 50 districts. Even if the district approach were used nationally, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections, so seven-eighths of the county would be left out of presidential elections. This is even worse than the current system, where two-thirds of the states are spectators.<BR/><BR/>A national popular vote is the way to guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President. It is the way to make every person’s vote relevant, regardless of where that person lives. <BR/><BR/>The National Popular Vote 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. When the legislation is in effect in that sized group of states, all of the electoral votes in the participating states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Thus, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency. <BR/><BR/>The bill has 320 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. The bill has passed by 11 legislative houses since its introduction in February 2006 (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California). <BR/><BR/>See www.NationalPopularVote.comjorekohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321659318284264784noreply@blogger.com