Is CA's bill that grants the states electoral votes to the candidate who wins popular vote a good idea?

Question

Will the Republican governor sign the bill?
Will the bill, which won't take effect until a number of other states adopt direct election, start a flood of popular vote moves in other states?
Besides the constitutional aspects of the electoral college, how does indirect election benefit a democracy?

Answer 1

I think it would be a great idea. I hope it catches on and spreads. If florida had had that, we wouldn't have had the idiot for 8 years

Answer 2

I haven't heard of this law, but I'm going to assume that you are accurate in your statement.

The least populated of the states would not receive any attention during a presidential election. Why would a presidential candidate be interested in states such as Wyoming or Alaska if states like California and Texas have some many popular votes.

The current situation requires that some attention to the smaller states.

Actually, with today's demographics, if California adopted this law, it would benefit the Republicans. The Ds will probably win the popular vote in California for the foreseeable future. So, in a close election, the Rs could benefit by this law.

For example, if Kerry had won Ohio he would have won the election based on Electoral votes. However, Bush still would have won the popular vote. Based on this law Bush would have received the 55 electoral votes and would have won instead.

Answer 3

The electoral college concept was, and still is, an IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD against the probability of populous states like New York, California and, yes, even TEXAS overpowering smaller sovereign states, who have the right to have THEIR votes count for something. Furthermore, turning over all of any state's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state would unfairly disenfranchise those voters who voted against that candidate. This is a LOUSY idea. Hou would you like knowing that YOUR vote wouldn't mean anything?