Wacky Californians

This editorial from Opinion Journal caught my eye recently. Here's an excerpt.

For more than 200 years America has chosen its presidents as the Constitution provides: through the Electoral College. Traditionally, each state has cast its electoral votes--equal to its total representation in Congress--for the candidate who receives the most votes statewide.

But last week the California Senate passed legislation to award the state's Electoral College votes to the candidate who has received the most popular votes nationally--whether Californians chose him or not. A similar bill passed the Assembly on May 30, so it will soon be up to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign or veto the bill. Such a bill also passed the Colorado Senate in April, part of a national effort to change the way we choose our presidents. The mandate doesn't take effect until enough other states sign on to provide a majority of electoral votes. If it were in effect in 2004, George W. Bush would have taken California's 55 electoral votes, even though John Kerry carried the state by a margin of nearly 10%.

I have to believe this move on California's part is based on a desire to rid itself of the Electoral College without going through the hassle of actually ridding itself of the Electoral College; namely amending the United States Constitution. This unleared tyrannosaur just can't wrap his stubby little arms around this one.

Kerry took California with 6.7 million votes to Bush's 5.5 million. Nationally, Bush beat Kerry 62 million to 59 million. Had this legislation been in effect, California's 55 electoral votes would have been awarded to Bush despite the fact that 1.2 million more Californians voted for Kerry than voted for Bush. The 6.7 votes for Kerry would be rendered worthless except for their impact on the nation's election results.

The 2000 Presidential election saw something similiar but on a nationwide scale. Gore beat Bush in the popular vote by 600,000 votes but Bush won the election by securing 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266. Gore lost the national election despite having the most popular votes just like Kerry would have lost California despite taking 1.2 million more votes than Bush.

I'm confusing my little walnut brain here but something here doesn't add up. California seems to want to hand over its sovereignty for a bill that could end up repeating the Bush v Gore 2000 issue but only on a state level. I feel like one of Harry Mudd's androids. I want to understand how this bill benefits those who believe in 'one man, one vote' but damned if I can pull it off.