Governor Brown Wants Your Vote To Count, Signs National Popular Vote Bill

Stupid.  Following this, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush would win California in droves then!  They won the popular vote!  (2004 for Bush).  

You want California votes to count more..........let the two candidates take percentage of the vote.  Whatever percentage you win, you win those electoral votes .  A few states do that now. Makes more sense.

You'd get more money into the state in campaigning, voters would know their votes matter - especially in a close election.

The electoral college works - each state matters.  Not just the coastal states like
Florida & California.   

Jerry Brown - don't we have more pressing things to do? Like make sure American citizens actually are the ones voting?   Perhaps, asking for ID to register to vote?  Nah........that's silly.

California does not matter under the current system.  We are ignored.

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters.  In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual.  Almost 75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.  This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI).  Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA).  In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states. 
                                        
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters ignored. 

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.No states use the proportional approach.Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin. 

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own,, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers.  If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide.  Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation.  The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote. 
 
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make
every vote equal. 

 It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman.  It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census.  It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon). 

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure
election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote.  In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate. 

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.