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. Obviously, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

See www.NationalPopularVote.com

Although this may seem like a digression….
In a world where California and Kansas have big differences in population and big differences in preferences a majoritarian system is going to have difficulty in keeping Kansas in the polity. This may have been settled in the mid 1800s in the US. But since I emigrated to Canada a decade ago I’ve learned that it hasn’t been settled here; whether or not Quebec will secede is still an open question.

–matt

Which is why places like, for example, Kansas aren’t likely to be thrilled with the sort of re-vamping you seem to favor. Are you also in favor of bagging the bicameral legislature and just keeping the House of Representives where states that actually matter in terms of population run things? I mean why have a Senate where Vermont has clout equal to California…

I was thinking that we should apply the electoral votes to all parts of the system (mayors, governors, school boards etc), where let’s say every 1000 people will elect one electoral, and the electoral group will vote on voter’s behave.

The reason? I remember a local homeowners meeting, most of us don’t have time to show up, so a few of the homeowners just gets our signature and voted for us, that way, the head of the homeowners association don’t have the full power over those busy-usually-do-not-show-up votes.

There are arguments several ways on the ideal system - afaik the ideal democratic system would use a partial list. You maintain the link between areas and “their” elected representative, and “top-up” the parliament using lists based on percentages of actual votes.

(i.e. A party gets 20% of the vote, and 5 areas. 20% of the vote is 20 members, and they then get 15 people from their list elected - you put the party leaders and suchlike on the list, so they can focus on their roles)

With a minimum vote share of a few percent to keep the cranks off the list, I should add.

The net effect to me still seems: California gets ignored just as much; the Republicans get some free votes; and in practice if not in principle, you disenfranchise even more voters.

If your proposal would actually make the election outcome more closely mirror voter intent, I’d probably be for it– even if it made my favorite candidate lose. But I don’t see that. I see your proposal (well, the ballot initiative) actually pulling results further away from voter intent, and I don’t see that as a worthwhile sacrifice for the possibility that other states might follow suit down the line.