The National Popular Vote plan has been re-introduced into the 2007-2008 session of the California legislature. The bill is SB 37, by Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco). The same bill had passed the California legislature in 2006, but had been vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
As all decent, rational, God-fearing, intelligent, good-looking people know, popular election of the president is a very bad idea.
But why did Gov. Schwarzenegger veto it?
What reason did he offer?
I quoted below the substantive portion of Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto message on AB 2948, last session’s version of the National Popular Vote plan in California. Note that he neither attacked it as illegal nor as a Democratic ploy, but gives a political argument that it would be “giving all our electoral votes to the candidate that a majority of Californians did not support”. Perhaps this was an indication that he would support proportional allocation of electors?
In any case, it is an opening for arguing that he should support instant runoff voting for the state’s slate of electors, since the current system allows a candidate who wins a plurality (but substantially less than a majority) now is given all of California’s electoral votes, the very thing he states as the reason for vetoing AB 2948. Note that this has really happened in 12 of the 39 California presidential elections since statehood. In 1992 (Clinton, 46.01%), 1976 (Ford, 49.35%), 1968 (Nixon, 47.82%), 1948 (Truman, 47.57%), 1916 (Wilson, 46.65%), 1912 (Roosevelt, 41.83%), 1896 (McKinley, 49.16%), 1892 (Cleveland, 43.83%), 1888 (Harrison, 49.66%), 1860 (Lincoln, 32.32%) and 1856 (Buchanan, 48.38%), all of California’s electoral votes went to a candidate with less than a majority of
California’s popular vote. In 1880, apparently one California elector was unfaithful, as the Democratic candidate Hancock won a plurality of 48.98% of the states popular vote, but only got 5 of 6 electoral votes.
————————————————–
from “http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/ab_2948_veto.pdf”:
I believe strongly in democracy and in honoring the will of the people. While this bill honors the will of the majority of people voting for the office of President of the United States across the country, it disregards the will of a majority of Californians. I appreciate the intent of this measure to make California more relevant in the presidential campaign, but I cannot support doing it by giving all our electoral votes to the candidate that a majority of Californians did not support. This is counter to the tradition of our great nation which honor states rights and the unique pride and identity of each state.
#####
However, if one puts on one’s rosiest-lensed spectacles, one can read into it that he approves the current system because it is the right one, or at least that he recognizes the Founders’ intents.
Maybe what he needs is less a lesson in history and philosophy and more a better speech-writer.
Maybe.
Popular vote favors the populous states and reduces the stake of the rest of the ocuntry.
I say no to popvote. I resist Californication of the constitution