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.

California and most other states currently have winner-take-all systems that give all the electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes in that state.

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments

One Comment

  1. rjsmitty says:

    If California checks to see all the people that vote are eligible to vote then I would go along with this , but as it stands there is about 10 -15% fraud going on with the system that is in place and the State does nothing to make sure that the system is accurate with eligible voters…

    1. B Rad N Green says:

      “10 -15% fraud going on with the system that is in place”
      Very simple question, according to whom?
      Site your source.

      1. Albert E Moreland says:

        Mexifornia! It would be more like 80-90% fraud LOL! Source? Why give a source B M oops! I mean B N. You wouldn’t believe it anyways. What a joke!

      2. Karen says:

        Who needs a source? I use my eyes.

  2. john says:

    i never even got to vote for this. looks like the democrats are out to get there way . you know when you have only 10 15 eletorial votes this is good but when you hold 135 electorial this is not so wise

    1. toto says:

      California has 55 electoral votes.

  3. Albert E Moreland says:

    When do the voters ever have any say in these “new laws”?

    1. toto says:

      The bill was introduced and passed by the California Assembly and Senate in 2007, 2008, and 2011. You had 5 years to have a say.

  4. Dan says:

    The reality of this bill is a scam, seeking to give all of California’s electoral votes to a democratic nominee. The reality is, half of the votes made in California will be ignored whether Democrat or Republican. A better bill would have been a proportional division of the electoral votes based on the number/percentage of the popular vote.

    1. noneoff says:

      I agree. If a candidate receives 47 % of the total popular vote, then they should receive 47% of the electoral college votes

    2. toto says:

      Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

      If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own,, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

      If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

      A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

      It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

      Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

      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.

      1. noneoff says:

        Then get rid of the the electoral college and just use popular votes.

    3. toto says:

      Under the Current system, votes not for the Democratic presidential candidate have been irrelveant to the Republican candidates. And all of California has been politically irrelevant and ignored.

  5. Dan says:

    How is it Constitutional for any state to give its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote? If a presidential candidate wins a majority of votes from a state, he wins that state. The one who gets the most votes didn’t win those votes, the winner of the state did.

    No way this can be upheld as Constitutional.

    1. toto says:

      There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

      The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

      Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

      The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

      Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

      In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

      The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

      The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.

      As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

      1. Blaze says:

        What the he’ll does it matter..??? We haven’t had a Free Election since 1860…but I guess nobody’s including all the fraud since THEN…!!!

  6. dawilliams says:

    I never got to vote for this one way or another. What the hell is going on here?

    1. toto says:

      As a function of our Republic, California State Assemblymembers and Senators, elected by Californians, passed the bill in 2007, 2008, and 2011.
      http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=CA

  7. bounce says:

    So Brown is willing to ignore the will of Californians based on what happens elsewhere in the country? Seriously? I hope the California Supreme Court knocks some sense into Brown.

    1. toto says:

      Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

      In a 2008 survey of 2,004 California adult residents interviewed from October 12-19, 2008, 70% of California residents and likely voters supported this change. Democrats (76%) and independents (74%) were more likely to support a change to direct popular vote than Republicans, but 61% of Republicans also supported this change. Among likely voters, support for this change was 6 points higher than in October 2004 (64%).

      http://tinyurl.com/3glex8x

    2. Karen says:

      What makes you think that Brown EVER paid attention to the voters.
      1. He disregarded our Prop 8 vote by filing a petition AGAINST US in federal court.
      2. He let ALL the lethal injections expire, effectively deciding AGAINST the death penalty. Without the drugs, that need to be specially manufactured, he DISREGARDED OUR opinon on the death penalty.
      3. He signed the Dream Act which gives ILLEGAL ALIENS access to funding for college.

      Like I said, WHEN did EVER listen to us?

  8. Albert E Moreland says:

    If it’s Brown, flush it down.

  9. Maggie says:

    Makes sense, the popular vote reflects who the majority want as president. This is a good law that I have a feeling will be very important in the next election.

  10. martin katz says:

    I don’t think this is wise. The founders created a FEDERAL system, with each state casting its votes separately for President. The votes should be awarded to the selection of the majority of Californians.

    1. TT says:

      Agreed – if you vote – it should count and not be negated by the “electoral anything”… Just count the votes

    2. toto says:

      There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

      2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters, including California.

      States have the responsibility to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.

      Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

      Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case recently in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

  11. jkaang says:

    Wow the governor does something that helps just amount no one. Bet you if voted for the pass 50 years vs. not voted, your life would have turned out the same.

  12. Steven says:

    So this means that Californians don’t really have to vote, because our vote won’t mean a thing? Say if a Democrat gets the majority of votes in California, but a Republican wins the majority of votes in the US, then the Republican gets the electoral votes of California. Wow, that doesn’t make sense. Once again, the Democrats trying to do something that goes against the Constitution of the United States. And just because one election didn’t go their way.

    1. toto says:

      The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. California is ignored. Republican voters in California don’t matter to their candidate. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

      Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like California, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

      2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That’s more than 85 million voters ignored.

      Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

      Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 56 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. Some insider Republicans believe under the current system in 2012, President Obama could win the electoral vote without winning the popular vote.

    2. toto says:

      Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, and included in the national count that determines the candidate with the most popular votes, who then is guaranteed the majority of electoral votes needed to win the presidency. It gives a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue 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.

  13. Brian says:

    Interesting… but we voters really had no say in this?

    1. toto says:

      California State Assemblymembers and Senators, elected by Californians, passed the bill in 2007, 2008, and 2011.
      http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=CA

  14. ginny says:

    Another political shinanigan, courtesy of the Democrats, sign a new law and then tell the citizens of the state that they have been no part in the discussions or decisions. Typical.

  15. inhermosa says:

    This is yet again a power grab by the Democrats. Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves. Brown just took apart 200 years of history. The Electoral College was set up so big states don’t monopolize the presidency every time. It is about equity and fairness. Isn’t that what the Democratic party runs on all the time? Ohhhh except when it means electing them. If it was reversed and the Electoral College favored Democrats they would be screaming not to change it.

    This only helps the Democratic Party because, most big cities/states are democratic.

    I’m not even Republican saying this. Bush was horrible President, and Obama is an even WORSE President. Didn’t think that was possible.

    1. toto says:

      I find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. Presidential campaigns spend 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they aren’t hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and can win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. Once the primaries are over, presidential candidates don’t visit or spend resources in 2/3rds of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states. So they are ignored. More than 85 million voters have been just spectators to the general election.

      Under a national popular vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes… Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.

      1. bounce says:

        >> I find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.

        How is making the will of Californians irrevelant helping? Let’s get rid of the electoral vote and use the popular vote only — the electoral vote made sense 200 years ago, but not with today’s communications and transportation systems.

    2. toto says:

      Under the current system, the 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, and a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

      But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

      Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support , hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
      * Texas (62% Republican),
      * New York (59% Democratic),
      * Georgia (58% Republican),
      * North Carolina (56% Republican),
      * Illinois (55% Democratic),
      * California (55% Democratic), and
      * New Jersey (53% Democratic).

      In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
      * Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
      * New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
      * Georgia — 544,634 Republican
      * North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
      * Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
      * California — 1,023,560 Democratic
      * New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic

      To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

    3. toto says:

      The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

      Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

      Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run, can be found by examining the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

      Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knows–namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.

      Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

      In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

      Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

      There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states. It is certainly true that the biggest cities in those states typically vote Democratic. However, the suburbs, exurbs, small towns, and rural parts of the states often voted Republican. If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

      Under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

  16. John says:

    This is an obvious “end-run” around the constitution and it’s 12th amendment. I can’t imagine the furor that would result if Obama loses the electoral college vote in 2012 (by losing the majority of states) but California has to cast it’s 55 votes for Obama despite the fact that the (still undetermined) Republican candidate narrowly won the state. This would go immediately to the Sumpreme Court for resolution. It seems logical to me that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to make such a change.

    1. toto says:

      The Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

  17. jay atkinson says:

    So if 100% of californians vote for a candidate and people in other states vote for a different candidate, our electorial college will vote for the other candidate.
    So our vote, my vote, your vote, counts for nothing!!!!!

    You do realize that some of you actually voted for Brown. Some you are probably still giving him money.

    But now it doesn’t matter who you vote for because the candidate will be decided in New York or Florida or someplace else, thanks to this guy.

  18. toto says:

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, and included in the national count that determines the candidate with the most popular votes, who then is guaranteed the majority of electoral votes needed to win the presidency. It gives a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue 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.

    The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.

    The margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
    * Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
    * New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
    * Georgia — 544,634 Republican
    * North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
    * Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
    * California — 1,023,560 Democratic
    * New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic

    To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

  19. Diva Docker says:

    sounds like a good bill if u want a riot
    http://wp.me/p1sC4M-ok

  20. toto says:

    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 is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state 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%, TN – 83%, 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%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should get elected.

    1. Richard says:

      I see, if we don’t agree with you we are not Americans. Is that really what you think?

    2. toto says:

      No. I didn’t say or imply anything of the kind

  21. Jim says:

    Impeach this fool before he does anymore damage.

  22. Rick says:

    The govenor of this once golden state is not qualifed to be in the position that he is in. He seems to be a complete moron.

    1. Karen says:

      Did you hear what Jerry Brown said on CNN? I was so embarrassed.

      Jerry Brown said that Obama has to dig down into his soul and connect with the American people at this time of peril. Yes he did.

      He also said that we Californians are going to have to cough up more taxes.

  23. Karen says:

    toto

    Give it up. Californians like to vote on issues that affect us.

    I know that may be news for you, particularly how our politicans never do what we ask anyway, but that is how we feel.

    I felt very ticked off that Jerry Brown allowed illegal aliens to get private funding for college in the US. I had no say in that either and believe me, Californians would have said NO.

    That’s why Brown goes around us. Did you vote for him?

    1. bounce says:

      What’s even more incredible is that illegal aliens qualify for tuition rates in California that are lower than those of out-of-state American citizens.

  24. toto says:

    In the U.S., elected representatives make the laws.
    California Assemblymembers, Senators, and the Governor enacted the bill, after it has been passed and on the agenda since 2007.
    http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=CA

  25. noneoff says:

    Suppose 50.1% of the popular vote goes to candidate A and 49.9% of the popular vote goes to candidate B, how is it fair that candidate A receives 100 % of the electoral votes when candidate A did not receive 100 % of the popular votes? Regardless of how the Fed or State current rules, laws, and regulations are setup, based on a winner take all setup, candidate A does not need 50+% of the total popular vote to win, candidate A just needed enough states to carry enough electoral votes to win, and D@mn the majority.

  26. Michele says:

    The last time I checked we were called “The United STATES of America” not The United PEOPLE of America”….I’m so embarrassed to live it the state of California.

  27. Blaze says:

    What the he’ll does it matter..??? We haven’t had a Free Election since 1860…but I guess nobody’s including all the fraud since THEN…!!! Nothing in the way gov’t has conducted itself in over 150 years has been Constitutional and since FDR our educational system has seen to it that nobody has the TOOLS or the PROPER education to figure it out…we just rely on others to tell us what we know and it has been a downhill rollercoaster ride ever since…

    August 11, 2011 at 6:49 am

  28. Jane says:

    Is this the first step to getting rid of the Electoral College?

  29. IrritatedVoter says:

    Who really cares? Only the SORRY LOSERS want to change the system when they lose. It’s only a matter of time before they want to change it back! Especially if they lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

More From CBS Los Angeles

KNX 1070 Newsradio
Play.It

Listen Live