California legislators approved a "National Popular Vote" bill, a move to elect the president by popular vote, last Thursday.
Assemblyman Jerry Hill (D-San Francisco), the principle author of the bill, argues that California has become a place where presidential candidates come to raise money, but do very little campaigning otherwise.
While the bill was passed mostly by Democrats in a 55-21 vote, Senator Mimi Walters (R-Laguna Niguel) recently wrote an essay in support of the National Popular Vote movement. Walters says that the California Republican party is on life support and restructuring the way presidential campaigns are run -- and way electoral college votes are used -- could "resusitate the California Republican Party."
"Instead of appointing our state's 55 electors based upon which presidential candidate wins California's popular vote," Walters wrote, "we appoint them based upon which candidate wins the nation's popular vote."
Walters' essay addressing the question of the bill's constitutionality saying that the bill will not eliminate the electoral college, but rather restructure how the electoral college is selected. For those who argue that there will be an influx of Democratic funds to run ads in California's urban centers, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, Walters says that media prices are more affordable in California's suburbs, where the Republican party has a strong base.
"Republicans will be able to turn-out more voters for less money," Walters argued.What do you think of the National Popular Vote movement?