This guy makes more sense than any American born politician we have. He has no fear of saying it like it is. He doesn't just go with his party. He rationalizes the idea before he acts. Hes not afraid to change his mind. He doesn't scare.

Since the state is 50% republician it would finally give a voice to the real peopel who live and work here not just the San Franciso or Hollywood bunch. This change would make this a real republic and truly represent the feelings of ALL the voters who live in Califorina.

Remember Props 74, 75, 76, 77? Remember blowing up the "boxes"?

NOTHING HAS CHANGED FOR THE BETTER!

The once great state of California is lost.

Governor Schwarzenegger, you are a whopping disappointment. You are now owned by the very forces you railed against in 2003 and 2005. You are a sellout!

01.03.2011 is only three years away. Sooner the better.

If he allows all the voices in California to be heard by allowing the measure to be on a ballot, this Governator will earn my respect as the Governator.
Elected officials should be fighting for ALL voices to be heard in their State.
If it's so bad, it won't pass when the votes are cast... if it's what the people want, then it will.
What about by the people, for the people?
Anyone who thought Schwarzenegger would be anything less than Kennedy is foolish. He married a Kennedy, has holiday dinners with the "family" and you think he's going to what--be conservative? Even middle-of-the-road? Bsh!
Unless he starts fighting for the people who elected him, I hope he is quickly replaced by a real conservative.

WOW!!!!!!!!! Do I detect scruples and accountability? My God you could have knocked me over with a feather!!!! If Arnold doesn't support this ill conceived notion I take back every funny word I've ever said about him. Really no kidding!

I find it highly hypocritical that those who call on Gov. Schwarzenegger to support this bill because it would "finally give a voice to the real people," and "truly represent the feelings of all voters," continue to play partisan politics. Have we now entered the political spectrum in which our opponents are selfish and immoral but when we do the same things it's considered justified? Yes, 44% of Californian's voted for Bush in 2004 but the state went to Kerry who recved all 55 votes. You could make the argument that that isn't fair, but on the same token is it fair that 47.1% of Florida voted for Kerry (27 electoral votes), 48.7% of Ohio voted for Kerry (20 electoral votes), and 40% of Texas voted for Kerry (34 electoral votes) yet Kerry received none of those electoral votes?

Gerrymandering has never been thought a legitimate political activity. There are not 53 Californias, but one. The opinions expressed here, proposing that electoral votes be won by congressional district with the rationale for such a change being that it would bring a sense of balance to the system, completely ignore the self-contradiction of such a proposal. Under this proposal, why not do away with the electoral system altogether and decide elections based on popular vote alone? The Governor quite obviously understands the self-defeating nature of this proposal and has come out against it. He is correct.

Isn't the current majority winner take all {in California} the same as a national majority winner take all? Just a micro of national. It must be a national change or it is Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, & San Diego all over again!

Al Gore once told America that we needed to "Make every vote count."

Our current electoral system of winner-take-all unfortunately takes the votes of up to half of the populace and counts them for the opposite candidate. Minorities are basically told, "Thank you for living in our State, but we are going to use your representative minority vote for the majority candidate."

Could anything possibly be worse?

Dividing the vote by district might be a step in the right direction, however, a simple proportional division of California's 55 electoral votes would be more democratic and better represent the true will of the people and vote of our State.

I think it's a step in the right direction. If it is literaly fair that 'every vote should count', then sending a balanced and proportional amount of votes up to D.C. is the best way to lead the charge in the pursuit of balanced elections. Perhaps other states will follow suit and we can truly affect change in this country. The system - as it is - is broke. It needs change and it needs it now!

Well because CA's 55 electoral votes represents 10% of the entire pool, if CA does a measure like this, most or all other states must follow suit; otherwise the election becomes based on who can win in one state rather than the nation as a whole assuming other states are predictable.

If every states drop "All or none" policy, we would see more involvement in politic. I live in Alabama which traditionally voted for Republican presidental candidates. I dont bother to vote in Alabama since I KNOW Republican usually win the state. If the electorial votes is determined by percentage of popular votes instead of "All or none", I WILL vote in a heartbeat.