The 2008 presidential election is over in California. Unless you are a major financial contributor or a Democratic superdelegate, your role in determining the next president ended with the presidential primary on Feb. 5.
California is a "safe" state. More than two-thirds of the country is in a similar situation; one party is comfortably ahead and therefore neither candidate campaigns in that state because to do so would be a waste of valuable resources. All of us who live in a "safe" state are essentially disenfranchised.
Presidential candidates in 2004 spent 99 percent of their money in just 16 states. Six close divided battleground states received two-thirds of the visits made by candidates and accounted for two-thirds of the money spent.
California was ignored, except of course for raising money to spend in Ohio, Florida and the "battleground" states.
The fair and equitable solution to this problem is to implement a direct, national popular vote for president.
A national popular vote guarantees the candidate receiving the most votes actually wins the election. Al Gore received more popular votes than George Bush in 2000, but fewer electoral votes and hence lost the election. What is less well known is that if 60,000 votes in Ohio had switched to John Kerry in 2004, Kerry would have won the Electoral College and be sitting in the White House. This would have been despite the 3.5 million more popular votes across the country received by President Bush. In fact, in 5 of the last 12 presidential elections, a switch of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote eliminates swing states, safe states and the all too familiar red and blue maps. Under a national popular vote, "winning" or "losing" a particular state is irrelevant. What matters is how many individual votes a candidate receives.
Currently, as long as a candidate receives the most votes in a given state, that candidate wins all of a state's electoral votes. That is the reason why 537 votes in one state, out of more than 122 million cast across the country, decided the presidency in 2000. That is also the reason why neither candidate campaigns in solidly Democratic or Republican states. A national popular vote makes it important to a candidate whether they receive, for example, 6 million votes in California or 5.5 million. The same holds true for every state. A national popular vote makes every vote equal.
The national popular vote plan already has been signed into law in Maryland and New Jersey and is being pursued in every other state. Fifteen legislative houses have approved this legislation in a little more than two years and it has made progress in many others.
The National Popular Vote bill is simple and straightforward. The candidate that receives the most votes in all 50 states (and Washington, D.C.) is elected. The plan only goes into effect when adopted by states representing a majority of the population of the United States.
California moved our primary to February to have a greater impact on the primary election. It succeeded. The next step is adopting the national popular vote plan. It will give us more influence in the general election and force candidates to actually campaign in California and focus on California issues. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should do the right thing and sign the bill when it lands on his desk.
Larry Sokol is a Sacramento resident who travels the country discussing National Popular Vote. More information is available at www.NationalPopularVote.com.
