California could pass a law to apportion electors by district (which they wont do, given that they are controlled by Dems), but such a change can not be instituted through a referendum.

But, presumably, the legislature could ratify a bill that was approved by referendum, rendering it constitutional.

The Constitution unambiguously gives the power to choose electors to whatever mechanism is approved by the respective state legislatures. California could pass a law to apportion electors by district (which they wont do, given that they are controlled by Dems), but such a change can not be instituted through a referendum.

This sounds like a correct analysis, Tano. What we have now are two small states, which I believe are Maine and Nebraska who have passed laws apportioning electors by district. Their impact is minimal on the overall integrity of a presidential election. But what about a large state that has one party running the state legislature and another party dominating congressional districts. Michigan would be an example as a blue state with republicans strong at the state level. What if even for a short time a republican was governor with both houses of the state legislature run by republicans [and they passed such an apportionment law}. All hell would break loose. And would the situation run afoul of other constitutional guarantees such as equal treatment under the law etc... Now that the cat's out the bag on this idea, I bet we're in for a major constitutional crisis in the future.

The Constitution unambiguously gives the power to choose electors to whatever mechanism is approved by the respective state legislatures. California could pass a law to apportion electors by district (which they wont do, given that they are controlled by Dems), but such a change can not be instituted through a referendum.

Nope,different subject, doesn't even qualify as tangental.

I had a feeling you'd say that.

There-in lies the rub, some still support states rights.

Does that include the right of Florida courts to handle the 2000 election dispute?

"Solution 2. Better yet, change the constitution, eliminate the electoral college altogether, and elect presidents by popular vote."

The unpopulated and small states already receive an unfair advantage in the Senate, to reinforce that advantage in the Electral College disenfranchises voters in the most populated states.

So once again there need be no campaign in California[the tail that wags the dog]. I don't know of a solution since I support state's rights; Perhaps a repeal of the 1980 campaign reform act?

Solution 1. Change the law nationally to partition electoral votes by who wins congressional districts.

Solution 2. Better yet, change the constitution, eliminate the electoral college altogether, and elect presidents by popular vote.

But in presidential politics, Texas is like California. We are a source of money, but a "don't care" when it comes to campaigning or 'paying attention to our issues'.

Not that I think Texas is likely to switch from winner take all, but the motivation to switch is there.