Oven: I agree that a popular vote for president would be bad. I think the EC is a fine way to pick a president.

What would you say, though, to splitting up California? We have a gazillion electoral votes that usually go Dem (with notable exceptions like Reagan). Some have considered splitting California into West and East, thereby freeing up the conservative inland empire and getting them some representation. The lovely ball-and-chain has been discussing this recently, though I'm not sure if she's actually for it.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

I favor states' rights, so I'd split California's Electoral votes if (A) Californians voted to split their Electoral votes (like Maine does), or (B) California split into two states. I don't think either will happen, so California should continue to be a winner-takes-all state.
 

Actually, the more realistic split (one that has actually seen discussion in government) is a north/south split (with San Francisco being part of the south). The State of Jefferson would have consisted of portions of the far north of the state (the part with the water), as well as a portion of Southern Oregon. It was being discussed for a vote in the California state legislature the day before Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor obviously ended discussion of such seemingly trivial domestic issues.

I've known this as an item of trivia for years. Oddly, on September 10th, 2001, when I was driving home from Northern California, a radio piece said that the item had been revived, and was once again being discussed in the California government. A case of truth being stranger than fiction.

The area in question is a staunchly independant area of the state that still actually identifies itself as "State of Jefferson" on road signs.

Here's a url: http://www.jeffersonstate.com/