Should California split their electoral votes in the upcoming presidential election?

There is currently a drive in California from Republicans to give 2 electoral votes to the winner of the state, and divide the rest of the electoral votes among the winners of each congressional district. This would make California more meaningful in an upcoming election. California historically votes democrat and probably will in the next election, however with the division per congressional districts, it may bring alot more campaigning to the state, and really decide the outcome, as 55 electoral votes wont safely go to the Dems. Im kind of undecided. I would like to see more of California represented in an election rather than just LA and San Francisco, but it also seems like the Republicans are just trying to find a way to keep the White House for another 4 years. What are your thoughts?Should California split their electoral votes in the upcoming presidential election?
It would not bring much more attention to California. Most Congressional Districts are not close. You may have 6 swing districts in the entire state that would get some attention perhaps.





The problem is if California is the only state that does it then you are simply giving 15-20 electoral votes to the Republican nominee. If every state did it, then it would be fair. If only large Democratic states do it, then it is a means to stack the deck.





My take is that California should agree to do it only if Texas also does it.Should California split their electoral votes in the upcoming presidential election?
They should when everybody else does.





The fact of the matter is the electoral college does not always accurately reflect the majority vote - See 2000. But a system that would not let a state give at least a significant majority of it's electoral votes to it's actual winner doesn't seem right either.





Small state advocates scream bloody murder at the suggestion; But I still just can't help but favor the popular vote winner as the actual winner being the best system. It just seems the most straightforwardly Democratic to me. I think all you have to do is look at the workings of the Senate the past few years to see that small states and minority party's rights are already plenty protected - Perhaps excessively so - There.
Both parties try to pull off 'reforms' that they think will help them more than the other party. In this case it would certainly help the Republicans. Otherwise they would find good-sounding reasons to oppose it.





I would like to see the electoral college abolished altogether. Failing that, I'd like to see EVERY state forced to apportion their votes. Failing that, apportioning votes in California is unilateral disarmament.





The original purpose of the electoral college was to give smaller states proportionately more power. It still does that. In other words, it -already- disadvantages California. Why should California disadvantage itself even more?
If you're a Republican then you're answer would be yes, since you know the Republicans have no chance at winning California. Democrats would obviously say no. If we're going to split electoral votes in the biggest state, then every state should do it, and if that happens, the electoral college is pointless and it should be a straight-up popular vote.
This election, no.





I myself lean to the right, and the left in Florida wanted to do this (sort of plan) before the 2000 election....which would have definitively given them the white house. So it's not just an interest of one party, even though you'll hear both party leaders say that (when opportune).





It seems there's no cohesive movement to get a plan throughout the country, so it doesn't overly favor one party or the other. I generally agree with the electoral process. I prefer it to be a matter of dividing the population to the electoral and setting up a system that creates district every two years. This way all states have swing areas....and regions aren't ignored. Both fullfilling popular demand and broad concesus.





Couple that with run-offs and you have a pretty-good system, imo.





Popular vote by itself is a silly idea, and anyone promoting the idea has not throroughly looked at it's effects on elections. It would eliminate small populated areas from the race...appealing to them wouldn't matter as much as appealing to the big cities, and letting that happen would make it a Rudy/Hill race for the rest of our lives. Disguisting.





Our presidents will end-up as bad as our senators. No thanks.
If they are so Democrat, then why did they elect a Republican governor.


Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger aims to extend coverage to almost all the 6.5 million uninsured residents of the nation's largest state.





Arnold Schwarzenegger, California's Newest Democrat


Meet California's newest convert to Democratic thinking, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Figures, he wants to give Illegals coverage also, yep! typical democrat.





Some elements of Schwarzenegger's plan are strikingly similar to the failed Clinton plan--most notably, a requirement that employers provide coverage for their workers. California's mandatory-coverage rule would apply to businesses with 10 or more employees and give them an option to put 14% of their payroll into a state fund instead.





Schwarzenegger also borrows from the Massachusetts plan a ';requirement '; (remember Hillary big fines for not joining or paying premiums) that individuals carry health insurance--the way car owners must have auto insurance--with subsidies for the state's 1.2 million poor. He would pay for part of it with new taxes on hospitals and doctors and offer coverage to ';illegal immigrants-';


He wants them illegal immigrants votes too, and there are a lot of them in California.
no, that doesn't make sense. you are basing your answer on your political bias not the actual process of the electoral votes. If California were able to do that, then it would only be right and fair for every state to be able to. As a republican I am sure you consider yourself a patriot. A true patriot cares more about the democratic process than the actual outcome because there is a strong trust in the democratic system. Once someone has opinions such as yours you can no longer consider yourself to be an actual patriot to your country otherwise you would accept the vote of the people because that is the the foundation of democracy to be of the people. The worst part is how people talk down of other political institutions, but do not really value the virute in democracy.