Forget the partisanship for a moment, if you can. If this measure passed, then from the Electoral College's point of view, California would have effectively split itself into three or four dozen different States.

No other States in the union do this, but once California did more than a few would likely respond in kind, motivated by the partisan demands of whichever party felt underrepresented.

Maybe you don't like the electoral college, but this is turn of events would NOT be the way to fix it. Look at it this way - the system may be unweildy because, now, electoral votes are apportioned within the strict geographical boundaries of the each of the 50 states. However, if states started divying up their votes by district, you open the doors for a nationwide gerrymandering crazy, as each state legislature struggles to apportion votes how the majority party sees fit.

Part of the reason the Electoral college 'works' is that State borders are essentially fixed, and somewhat arbitrary. Taken with the fact that electoral votes are winner-take-all for each state, each state is its own entity, electoral votes represent a statewide referendum on the presidency, one candidate or the other. To divide this up for the sake of more direct democracy will inevetably lead to battles like the one in texas, 2004, as county and district lines are much more movable than state lines.

There are many who say the electoral college is already FUBAR, but you make a very valid point about the gerrymandering issue. Too bad we can't legilate that kind of behaviour away...

I don't think the electoral college is as bad as people make it out to be. And many of the "cures" are worse than the disease.

IMHO, I think the winner of the nationwide popular vote should get some electoral 'booster' votes, so we could try and resolve the incongruence between the two.

Thats not necessarily true.

You get your population votes plus 2 extra votes. If you based the electoral votes off of percentage (like Maine), then you aren't doing anything to really hurt the system. Instead, it means that large states, like California, can't dominate, but also that large states, like California, are having more of their people represented.

California, as a Democratic state decreases slightly in power. California, as a state made of people who are not just Democrats, gains power because more of their people's votes actually matter in the election.

I'm all for that particular outcome, but it seems to me that if the mechanism is to apportion electoral votes by district (or some geographically definable area, to be determined by politicians), then there will be no avoiding partisan gerrymandering, both democrats and republicans.

proportional representation would be fine, so long as it is measured by the total votes within a state, not its respective districts.

So we'll just end up with a new Gerrymander that makes every district solidly Blue, with a few token and crazily designed Red and Gray districts.

I'm all for this if we could limit Gerrymandering, and it was done nationwide. Otherwise, it simply isn't fair.